Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats


Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

CARL!: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 



I, 8. tiTElL.'^lias 


Appijllants, - 


Fr©« the statement of defesdante as to the forw of actllm, 

•ppsAra that tht ••▼eral dafend&nts aapa&led froa a Judgment 

itered againet than In an action originally brought by Alvin 0, 

haneh and J. a. I^yery Motor Company, « corporation, againat J» 

( Wail, Mre. J, H, .ail and Uudlay A. Walton to reoover daaagea 

9 personal injuries and property daaage. By an amended comolaint, 

4t proceeded to trial, with J, A, Lisv@ry Motor Cofflp&ny &s the 

oLy plaintiff, to recover for moneys paid to its employee, Alvin 

Olrrenoh, for injuries and for aaiaagea to its automobile which 

FMfih was drlTlng, incurred in a street intersection aocldent oa 

A^l 10, 1939, at 75th Street and Blaekstone Arenue in the City 

o^ioago, when the autoaiobile driven by Frenclft oollided with an 

aikobiia driven by the defendant, l>udley A, 3helton, 

At the tine of the aoeldent complained of both the plain* 
ti J, A, Lavery Motor Company, and its employe©, French, and 
thWf*tRd«nts, Mr, and Mrs, well and their employee, Shelton, s^ere 
optting under and were bound by the terws of the iftorkmen's 
Conwation Act of Illinois, and this action was brought under 
secU 29 of that Act, 

The ease vas heard by the court without & Jury. Requests 
forfindlng for the defendants were nade at the conclusion of 
plalff«8 case and at the conclusion of all the evidence. These 
reqtia - ore denied and the court found for the olaintiff In the 

^) ^ 


y ,iJ..iK 


, '? swot $aB.J^iu>t9& lo. S^fl^ttft^aJt ©Jlar »<nvi 

iiItIA ^99XQ£<rmn nil oi bl»a «Y<>iSos t&l •jevosfi-t o* «11:/ifi!i«I<; ll» 

Aotdv 9£i4omoSu» •?/ oJ •«!(**»«£•' ^el &n» a»jCiirtfi.£ "tot ,i!»iiiii'«<> 

Ao :in%bttin» aoi^^wsnsJai Jc^'sita s ni B»«s*£u©«i ^igfiivlib »«v dot' 

XHO 9A3 nt »ua9VA Ba^»S%ti>MlH baa i99*ti'i ti^SV f» «^6X ,01 *<|A 

;.^fi? Jo «?s .;»■©•• 

• »®rit ,ttotmblY'f- '^ril .Tt lo flfjiwuitinr;" ban «««o a»l'Hl«X«| 


CUB of 11954.59 and eoste on its atn«nd«d eoaplKint, vhioh charged 
the defendant e with negllgenoe and with wilful, vanton and tnalioious 
oonduot. Defendante* notion for a new trial and (Botion for Judgaent 
notwithstanding the verdlot wae denied, and the oourt having entered 
4iidgaent upon the finding, this appeal wae taken hy defendante* 

There is no ooint raised on the pleadings except that 
plaintiff charged that the defendants: (1) eerelesely, negligently 
and ifliproperly operated an aatoaobile, (a) at a high and unlawful 
wite of speed, (b) without keeping a proper lookout, (c) without 
giirlag suitable and reasonable warning of its approach, (d) without 
ftopping iaid automobile before striking plaintiff •§ autojaobile, (e) 
with ineffioient and ineffeotlTe brakes, and (f) without yielding 
the ri^t of way; aM th^t the defendants (S) willfully, wantonly 
end malioiously drove eaid automobile; and that they (3) willfully, 
wantonly and aallclously drove fsid automobile at a high and unlawful 
r&te of speed. The defendants* »n«w©i^ denied that plaintiff and its 
agent, French, were in the exercise of due ears and epeclflcally 
denied each and every charge of negligence and wilful, '</anton and 
aalieious conduct. Defendants further alleged that the acoident in 
question was oaused by the wilful, wanton, tBalioious and reokless 
conduct of the plaintiff and the manner in which plaintiff 'e automobile 
was driven. 

It appears further from the facts that on April 10, 1939, 
Alvin 0, French, employed by the plaintiff, was driving a 1939 
Mercury Sedan, owned by the plaintiff, west on 75th street, French 
says he was traveling about 2S miles ^9r hour straddling the outside 
or north rail of the west bound street oar tracks. The southeast 
corner of the intersection of 76th Street and Blackstone wae vacant 
and the vision was good from the east. When French was 125 feet 
east of Blacketone, he saw the Pontiac coupe driven by shelton 
traveling north on Blackstone ©bout 800 feet south of 75th street. 


X^f"^ ^»li4om!xSMM Aft A^.Tsisc^c t-Cn^<3<»^<l»i ^tti 

^alQfit^3i ti/OiUl*^i id) ^h9*qf. to »itn 



^ B 

oas^lX^nn to »^«jjfo ti«^^ &n« ii9ae 5»JUi«A 

noi^ii^oisXS baa t9t^3^' i(^ST to i»oX;rflfea't&^£tit Mit \q tnmtm 
noJIerlt v,d flsflnli eauot> osiJfjo ' sd:* . .'ioJ»4o.nX< "■<-■ $a»« 

eXl«5!offlffiJii/a o'lllJulaXf,; floi 

,??5ex , 


fr«ikoh says h« did not estlaate the Pontiao*s spead sit thst tia*. 
fhit ii«xt tlae freneh notle«d th9 Fontlao It waa flTe or six feet 
from hia and about to eolllde with his Mereury. following the 
oolllftlon the Mereury r&n or >^as driven into an Iron post th^at holds 
the trolley wires at the northwest oorner of Blaekstone and 7&th Street. 
French further testified that he did not reaoaber whether he swerved 
his automobile to the north Just before the colli 8lon» that he did 
not watoh nor see the northboxand Pontl&e after he first saw It about 
200 feet south of 75th Street, that the MereuiT was In perfect 
condition and at the speed he was traveling, French said he could 
hftve stopped In eight or ten feet, Fr^^neh did not recall blowing hie 
horn and did not know what happened to the ^^ontlac after the accident* 

The defendant, Shelton, ^mn driving the Fontiae north on 
ilackstone Avenue about thre» feet froa the east curb. k& Bhelton 
approached the intersection of Blaoketone and 78th Street, he testi- 
fied he waa driving between 20 and IBS ailee per hour vhen he first 
ea^!? French* s Kertjury about ISO feet east ©f Blacketone. from his 
testiaony it &ppe&rs that the ne:!rt tlae he saw the Mercuz^ it was 
about ten feet froa hia and the front wheels of hie Fontiae were in 
the center of 75th Street between the eaetbound and %'eetbound atreet 
oar lines. As Shelton approached the intersect ion hn gl&aced to his 
left but did not see any approaching vehicles. He testified that 
he decreased hie t|p«ed and slowed down at tlie intersection, going 
into second speed to cross, and that he then saw the Mercury which 
was jsajting a sharp swerve to the right as it oaae into the intsreection, 
then it curved in front of Bhelton, the cars collided, and the 
MerottiT continued to roll in a tilted position and landed against 
the trolley pole at the northwest comer of the intereeotion. Proa 

the testiaony of Shelton it aopsars that as soon as he saw the Mercury 
he applied his braiies to svoid the collisionj thsit his Pontiac had 
Jtist cone to a stop at the tlae of the collision; that after the 



«uJ ^Ui^-OJ i . jryfr.f fin ciJiw 9AlSSt$ti oit 9m>4<i Att« lUW Mtfltt 

«^J[«4[ 7ji4;f #&o>g £Mi');Jt it^ atai n^vHl-" s,av 10 oi^ "ll^wtridJI a4l <ioi«itiX*t 

^f&iOi^ . -.-.i tatt^ OAi^no'i &ffGrod|{^i0ii s*U ^»3 ion il»tsw #•« 

Hi 9i»ya 9»l3m>*i Mlh tc »ie»iiv $ws%\ oM-t Jfea^E^ eiH fsomt t*?) flit JNyrti^ft 

;r»^<itla £)iuuod«^i^«« i^m. j^flg0«»J|'««9 silt fi»«w^9£f l««^^ 4(?p^ 1» '«9tfd»9 tlCr 

^inAS h9i\L3ufi--. * -v;:o£d@v ^aXllo.a<n<7n^ t^« »•• #o«l i^4i^ ^00 t\9l 

tKiilfl^«( bftStatil hsm aattlMi^q, SmilXi m nt Hen otf 'k^aRliat>9 x^9V»l^ 


oolliaioA the r«ar whvsla of th« Pontlae v«i*« on th* w«flt boiind street 
oar traok near the middle of Blftftkttone Avenue; and that It vac raining 
▼ery h«r<! at the tine of the aeolclent. Shelton eetlnated the speed 
of the Meroury at froa 30 to 35 nlles ptir hour at the tiae of tli« 
colli 8lon« 

1% also appears that )^«1 ton's eaiployer, ICre. '«i^ell, one of 
the defendants, had telephoned Shelton about twenty- nlnutes before 
the aooldent and dlreoted hla to plek her \xp &t the Illinois Central 
Railway Station at 71st Street and Stony Island Avenue, Shelton vas 
chauffeur and houseman for the Wells aad vaa on his way to plok rip 
Mrs. well when the aeeldent happened. 

Plaintiff's eaployee, French, w&e threwn fpo« tfee oar ©ftt© 
the pavenent and as a result reoelved a fractured pelvis, collar l3one, 
and several ribs, a punctured lung^, and several other injuries* There 
vaa evidence heard from witnesses twho appeared at the trial and, an 
ve have Indicated, the court at the conclusion of the hearing entered 
the Judgment against defendants, from which this appeal is taken. 

The first question called to our attention by the plaintiff 

is that the certlflcete of the trial court attached to the report of 

the proceedings docs not state th£t the report of the proceedings 

contains all of the evidence, and Is, therefore, under the authorities, 

fatally defective. The certificate in the instant case Is as follows| 

"For »i much th»refor as the metters and things contained 
In the foregoing report of oroceedlngs do not otherwise &pn<»nT of 
record herein, the defendants tender this, their Heport of Proceedings, 
and pray thst the same be signed and sealed by the presiding Judge In 
this case and made a part of the record herein, which is done 
accordingly In said County and State this 7th day of June, a, d. 1940. 

^John J, 'Wallace (^eal) 


It Is urged by plaintiff that the courts of this state have held 

repeatedly thet where the Beport of Froeeedlnge falls to state that 

It contains all of the evidence, a reviewing court will presume there 

»*re'iej :?!ii/;i3i-m tJurt-?-!'! t^ent a^^f"- ■ eX«i l»«4( ,s4a34;,jrt«iafe «jcW 

ll>»«i##j»« -^ttMi^d ^dS to fi€>ieLtfi»;3c^e .^fU i& s%aQ9 9^ ,lM»t;30iJ&oi trail wv 

^m9ist's®iiiii& •tit 19&W0 ^9ntt9ni^i «fti ft«ui «9aa«^£v9 9£t;r tc IXa &«i«jriu»9 
|pv?©XI®t *-ai*9 JTaeJafli ««UI si 9i^&ttl9't9& ©if? •evi^dDtvA i(XX«^jit 

i&'S-' ".e Ciltt «« 'r '».« «« 1©"?" 

'^5 *?5ltl^'?^«• ■ —^^ '9ffJScr5i^«t -«dJ Hi 

(Xa«*^) »sjaXi ' . ■.■'•-' 

fel«ri •▼i*^ 3i»Ja:?s Sid* tc a»ti;o» «di ^«jiJ ttWifilsXc! "f4 ftv^^tf •! fX 
lA^if %iM9n e$ felist «^i&«t»9««r^ to ttisa«^. »siy rx«ifv fj»£i^ XXAt»ta«4n 


w©e euffleient evidanet before th« trial eourt to sustain ths entry 

of the Judgnent appealed froa, and la support of this contention cites 

Jafg ▼. Dexter, et si .. 113 111. 654; ahetan t. §tUj 300 111. App, 

364; Henry t. H&llovay. 78 111. 356» The defendants, in reply t© 

this contention of plaintiff, point out that the defect, if any 

•xistedf was rectified by an aaendaient duly made to the record herein 

and allowed and entered hy the Appellate Court on Deeeaber 4, 1940, 

It is also pointed out that whatever say be said of plaintiff's argument, 

it sust be considered as coning to late and therefore waived, inesauoh 

a» aectiop 4i, Hule 1.. Illinois Api^llato Cksurt, First District, provides; 

*A elalB that any isatter in the trial court record actually 
before the court on appeal is not properly authenticated may be 
raised only by notion filed by at)pellant or feppelle® before or at the 
time of filing his brief. Bueh motions shall be subject to the 
provisions of Hule 5, and each notion shall be supported by affidavit 
shoving, not only that the matter ooaolalned of is not oroperly 
authenticated, but that it is in fact inoorreot, snd that injury 
will result to the objecting party because of its inclusion. Unless 
a Botioa is aade in the manner required by this rule, the record 
shall be deemed to be correct* * 

Plaintiff filed no aotion in accordance with Section 4, Rule 1. 

Befendants further cite subsection 2, section 74, Par. 198, Ch. 110, 

111. !)ev« St. 19S7 (Jones 111. itats. mn, 104,074) which reads as 


*A11 distinctions between the conmon law record, the bill of 
exceptions and the certifloate of evidence, for the purpose of deter- 
mining what is properly before the reviewing court, areahreby 
abolished* The trial court record shall include every writ, pleading^ 
motion, order, affidavit, and other doouaents filed or entered in the 
cause and all natters before the trial court which shall be certified 
SB a part of such record by the Judge thereof. All natters in the 
trial court record actually before the court on appeal nay be con- 
sidered by the court for all purposes, but if not oi^perly authenticated, 
the court may order such further authentication as it nay Seen advis- 
able, * 

Further, attention is called that Far. 2S9,3®, Sec. 4, Ch, 110, 111, 

Rev, Stat, 1937, provides the general procedure with reference to 

appeals taken to the Appellate or Suprese Court and in section 4 



«6#ia iieX^ii«^if<»9 ftid$ to l<x»^^« iii t>«M ^m»%\ ft*ijR«^n(* tJUMatei •xijf to 
,c^ .ill 00£ UJji^ .V m»m. i^^ .XXI SIX ...Li SB .^*^xma .V iisit 

0^ xiqsn Hi ,«iH«&<i»i«&. tji'f .das .XXX ST iiaiyifffti .v suaii& ;t«e 

•0>6X t^ ^«tfiif&^^ a«: ^Hi^a. ^Alif^siA ilft mti t^tntm^ ^ma iitnmltM ham 

Xllmsf^m Mc'-- - '■■••■- •■ ^•^"•■- - '■ * --■■ ■'—.:ftsnR w t^$ mlMS- ■• ^ 

•«ii t^wB ft ei latQQ* ire ?• nol^cf 

>^ ^o&B .t'fki'xcf sXxl imlifi ^et •ait 

'"■- , i ui :■; • -^ ^?a«lU«« 

. t^^aq "» XXiv 

♦ , fffjisTot^ nna^© lolifoa OB fe»Xlt tti»nXAX<I 

,0X1 .fit) , . » "^ ! I jlo l;r»9 sifirii wfis ire^iif'Stfl: »^fiafefi«t*a 

9s »6»»«i ilol/hr (j^tO.^OX ♦««# .J . fi enncl^} TS^^X .^*i .rtrf? .XXX 

: SH-^olXoT; 

iiaJ ■■; 

.XX i ,OXX .no ,^ .oa*: ,M.9«S ,n^ tmAS 6»XX«e »X ii©i:f«»tt» «n»ifft«^ 

6i 9D«»nc»t«n ilifXw auwiNiocnc r^rt«iH»B o**^ ••61 voter .'P^W .lAtS .vaff 

> lt«X3ro0« Al baa {T'XtfaC' »«»«te|X0 *(• «fmXi9Q«sit MStf o^ B*aU^ »X«*«f4a 


•a elaln that any matter in th« trial eowrt record actually 
before the court on a>3p«Al 18 not properly Authenticated in&y be 
raleei only by aotlon filed by the aopellant or anpellee before or 
at the time of filing hie brief. Such notions ehall be subject to 
the provisions of Rule 49 and e&eh motion ehall be aupnorted by 
atfidETlt showing, not only th®t the matter co«plalne<a of Is not 
properly euthentioated, but that it is in fact incorrect and that 
injury will result to the objecting party because of its inclueion. 
Unleae a notion is atade in the manner required by this rule, the 
record ehall be deened to De correct, * 

Upon consideration of the fact that the record vae amended by a 

proper certificate and after ooneldering the rulee and section of the 

statutes ae called to our attention we are of the opinion th&t the 

question has been obviated by the amendment, and thia appeal, 

therefore, vlll be considered on the merits of the cause. 

f%e defendants* first contention is that they were not 
guilty of wilful and canton conduct, and suggest that the finding and 
Judpient for the plaintiff was based on the entire eoaplaint which 
charged both negligence and vilful, vanton and msilicioue eonduot. It 
is conceded thut there is soae evidence in the record fron which the 
court could find negligence on the part of the defendant Shelton, 
the driver of the Pontiao, and it is also conceded that hi was the 
agent of the defendents well, !k>wever, it li urged that the record 
completely fails to show any wilful, wanton and malicious eondust on 
the part of Shelton, It Is contended that the undisputed evidence 
likewise shows that the Dl©intlff*8 driver, f ranch, %ra® as much or more 
so guilty of negligence; that such negligence would be a complete bar 
to recovery by the plaintiff on the ground of defendant's negligence; 
and that the trial court apparently so understood the law for he 
refused to disnise the wilful, ^^t^anton and malicious charges, but on 
the contrary made a finding on these charges in order to overcome the 
obvious contributory negligance on the psupt of plaintiff's driver 
and agent, French* 

The plaintiff, however, insists th&t the finding and judgment 
of the trial court is not si^^ainst the manifest veight of the evidence 
but, on the contrary, is in sccord with it, and calls attention to 
three points made by defendants: (1) that their acts did not constitute 


'-i\ I ■>■■■:■■ f- iV' ?'{:<-.« •!*t 9«tot9<r 

« At tm 

rj^ts lutt 

"* la bio»»n 

•Jti;^ lo floW©e*> &n.« »«Xt5<s writ ^ni«!F«l>j««o«) i^i^» ft«» •#j6«11i9*i«o i^^^anq 

ff«l4ir iferisXc^cG etl^n^ «£i:f m:> S«a ^lifai^s/c^ Mf9 tot tcHMmftiVt 

^jjrr^fiv*: ?5^fit?r® jtftflWf -»it!f t«rf^ . '^» ei ?I ,m-??fei'i" t»5 /taq •!!# 

'piTf ^«1 ^ifsX duisr bt'titnf^bhiiv op tXtisfi^MJ^q-s tt»«& f»i«(r* »M* i*fi^ Mui 

£v^. «fi} 1;q ;ij|i|l9«t t9«l£a«(i tiitr ttflJtA^e ^on at t«weo XAin» 9<U !• 


wanton and wilful oonduot; or (£) If the dtfondant** act* constituted 

vilful sold wanton oonduot, th« plaintiff was aleo guilty of wilful 

and vanton eonduot, or (5) that th« plaintiff's employ** v&e cliarge- 

sble with contributory negligence, the defendante conceding negligence 

on their part. It la urged that although no epeolal finding of aalioe 

was entered toy the trial court, there Is clearly sufficient erldenoe 

In the record to sustain the charge of wilful and vanton conduct on 

the part of the defendant, Shelton, There la evidence of two wltneaeee 

In this record th^t the defendant, Shelton, was driving on Blaekstone 

Avenue at a speed of froa 35 to 4ft allee per hour; that plaintiff's 

eaployee was driving west on 75th Street at 25 allee per hour, 

straddling the north rail of the west bound street ear traoke; that 

it was raining at the tine; that plaintiff's Mercury had entered the 

intersection of 75th Street and Blaokstone Avenue before defendant's 

Pontlac, and had passed the center line of 31®cic®tone Avenue, when 

defendant, Shelton, driving north on Blackatone Avenue at a rate of 

speed of about forty alias per hour, and without slackening hie speed 

at any time before entering the Intersection, crashed into the left 

rear side of plaintiff's Mercury, atfid «e a result of the Impact, tlie 

plaintiff's Mercury was hurled against an Iron trolley post on the 

northwest corner of the intersection, with such force that the Mercury 

was daaaged toy the collision with this iron post* 

Plaintiff urges that wsnton and aalieious conduct has been 

defined b^ the courts of this state, asS 

•iUi Intentional disregard of s known duty necessary to the 
safety of the person or t>roperty of another, and an entire absence of 
care for the life, person, or property of others such as exhibits a 
conscious Indifference to eonseouenoes, makes a case of eonetructive 
or legal wilfulness such as charges the person whose duty It was to 
exercise oare with the oonseouencee of a wilful Injury. Walldren v, 
KruijCf 891 111. 472; « Uvton v, pgoaeeki, 256 111. App. 461; 

the defendant Shelton knew th«t he vas approaching 76th street, s 

street wider than the one on which he was traveling and on which 

were located two sets of street oar tifaoks, a street whieh in all 

•en«glX^«/» ^i£^«afloo *;rfl*i»fi»lf|i «iiJ ,»ofi«*giX|j#fi xfo^wTi^K^A^* iStlw vl^ 

•««i»&iv«? Jaaiolttu* tIisaX» «i <nt»iijr .Jtwoa Xiasli* »fl;f trf ft^^s^ft* •«* 

•••«a«3iv ow? 'tc «j»«9&iT» »i «^9riT ,n<>?j:8rie «#iiafeiii»t«i& »«<» to ftrnq •tit 

•atii9M9mM fto ^alrltb e^iw «i!(^X«4' ,^jni£l>ii«t9i& «i|f# tMdt Afro»n tlilf al 

s*1:ti^(!iJt«X<; t&ds iiiita ^o« BfXi« 94^ e# as veict t« &««4|fii t t» mumrk 

(luckci tsq 4ttXJUB ^S if* ^a^iifS £(;r€V no }8«v ;§fiiTi:*t6 8«w e^xoXqp* 

iMkflLS i9Ji9^t-ii IMQ t9M%t^ JNlVflKJi t««v »M9 lo XiiTi xCffdii •d$ a»iX?>ftai#t 

a«£ter «»ifXgfvA 9Ao}aM»«X& to iSlX <i»#a«o till ftvatii^ &m4 tea «Mi^fie% 

t® &$&% a i» fiAiusTA. «ir9Jff3C»«Jni 00 dPtiM laiTluft ,iMKri«^ «^flAb«i»t»* 

&•«<;« %M ^JM»i9AU isjcMitM bM& ,i«rQil f9e. ••Xi« t^ot ^ii(Mf« !« to«^ 

ai£t ^t««^X «/ :a«*f JK «« &ii« ,tn;&9n9M 'tlifitiAXq to •*!• *i««<i 

•4^ so jTftoq t^XXonL^r A<yxi oa ttialj^u &oXTindi »Atf X*uu«^s^ Q*ttl#Ai«X(| 

^If9«t9ft ftiC? ^&d# 9^«t 43Mr3 Ailv ^aoif^t^i^tnl ftfl9 to «i»moo ftwithiMi 

«;raoq cf«ix »ii(7 ii^lv noiaixt^o M{«r t^ &«q|«Mib 8«v 

•MS (»i x^mMvit^m xitib atfxni^ m to Magift'itili I. 

S " - litaV* AV*/! "TCTQ *X8 ««(! ' SIS* 

•Ti. -> ««^- <r .-. ^■., ,., ^ ,... ,„ -.r,o. ,■, .....i99mtt» 

" Tr .XXI aest , iftiMirt •▼ otttXAl ''i^^ •xxx ^^ «aK2i 

dotctw CIO baa jidllft^uis s^w ^ij sbUdv «» sue ftdiT uull tmbJtm tBm%tm 
XXa ai jEictixitir |»f»t;r» ^ ,«j1oai|^ i«« ^•«'X9» te n^»u oinr l^^t^eoX •^^v 

Xikellhood vould b« ataoh nOF« htevil^r trstvoled than a street upon 

vhieh. th«rtt wsa no street o«r traoka. Ohelton te8tlfl6<3 that ha 

sew tha plaintiff* fi automobila approaohlng fron the right. Ha Knew 

or fihould have known thsit plaintiff's automobile, under th« l&wa 

of thie etata had th« right of way at the lnterBeotlon« and that 

It wea hi« duty to yield that right of way to the plaintiff. The 

etatttte upon this auhjeet* i^ar, 16&, Chap. 9&^, 111. ^ev, Stat., 

1939, proYldea; 

*gxe«pt aa hereinafter provided motor vehicles traveling 
upon public hij^veys shall give the right-of-way to vehlelee 
approaohlag along intersecting hljg^ayf front the right and ehall 
have the ri^t-of-way over those appro&chlng from the left,* 

^en we ooae to oonelder the facta as they were presented 
to the court who heard this, there waa a duty on the part of 3helton 
to prooe d at a rate of speed, as he was traveling in rainy weather 
onto a wider street on which were loeated street Q»r tracks, so as 
not to culninate in inj«iry to other persons and property rightfully 
thiere. Hi a conduct as It appsars from thle record might well be 
held to show a eonsolous indifference to the eonseciuenoes of his acts, 
when we consider that at the tine he sptdd Into the lnt«!rseotion 
there is evidence that he was going forty miles per hour* and thst 
he did not «Xov up in th# sll||iyyii/ and ''that the oraeh oocuf^red at 
a ^olat in tlie intersection where plaintiff's autonoblle had already 
traversed the center line of Blackstone Avenue, fhe plaintiff's 
eaiployee, as we gather from this eviaence, as not guilty of wilful 
and wanton oon^hict or of contributory negligence. It seems that 
defendants do contend thst if defendant, Bhelttn, was guilty of 
wanton and wilful conduct, then plaintiff's eaployee, French, was 
also guilty of wilful and wanton conduct, and cite a nunber of cases 
in Sttpport of their theory. However, we are of the opinion that French 
WAS not guilty of wilful or wanton oonduot. tTnder the statute 
French had the right-of-way and g^s we have already stated, the 
defendant ahelton was traveling at a rate of speed which did not 
indicate that he so controled the movements of his autonoblle as 


w»Bjt 08 ,i^t^ nm tmnJ ^idsmmqcc* -fTM^moJuei a'tlUn/?- ■ '«»• 

l^Xnt^^i^^ ^}^^^[«^q Smm »ms«ttmq <x«iSt« of t^irtai ai 9^jBiil»Xiie et ton 

^^it» eiixi to »9«rs»4rp»«(so» «c{j ot «tMi*9«tt ii^ai aamlMMl69 » inula o# ftlMf 

.'sc 11 esses ".'tisi »A0 oiaM hnq^ «it ^sit *At tm twM t rtlta — tv #i«Ar 

Ji%«i;» ,&fiU9 «i&od «t«iT a»Xi« it^^»l; |iiii(% ajiw •/! :f«ii? •iMni5iT« •! nvwir 

la l>««t*i«f,)9o 4i»*--- tea l?l& «i( 

ft*» ^Aan^i tf>9Xf^qmit m^tttSfmUl , jua MOtmmw 

tef. "lasiiaifo « «^ia Um. ^fm^a&o a»$a.i"f f-At- XJtfl.<.. -^ 'Xing eti« 

lofi bit> AoJmtn 6»ftQB lo fttt ^etiX«Vi»*T; ttttvf m»#Xs4fl$ tnaiiWt^ 


not to eollid« vlth the plaintiff* e osr» The olaintiff oontende tluit 

the &©te of plaintiff's employe®, Frenoh, were the aota of any 

ordiitftiflly prudent person under the sfiiie or eiailiar oiroumstaaeee; 

that In the 11 ht of all the evldenoe In the reeord, plaintiff's 

efflployee did ererythlng an ordinarily prudent person would do under 

the Bsae oonditione; and that far from oonatltutlng 'i<ranton and 

nallelous eonduot on the oart of the plaintiff's employe®, these faott 

show that he vaa tr^e of any negllgenoe whatsoever. 

Upon the Question of right-of-»^ay st the Intereeotlon, the 

pUlhtlff oltee the oaee of ?artrldye v. S^^rytem, 225 111. hpp, 209, 

where It appear* that plaintiff wee driving wast on 7«th Street and 

the defendant was driving north on Louella Avenue. One wltneee 

testified that both eare were goli^ from 30 to 35 slles per hour. 

Defendant testified that he saw plaintiff's oar when It was 7b feet 

east of Louella Avenue, when he, the defendant, was about 25 feet south 

of 7@th Street. In the opinion the eourt eald; 

''Whatever the exaet distance may have be«n, it ii apparent that 
plaintiff's eutoffloblle vae approaching the intersection of the high- 
ways from the right and that under the statute It wjgs the duty of 
defendant to give the rl ht of way to ol&lntlff'e autoaoblle, fhe 
evidence, however, tende to show thst e&eh automobile prooeedod on 
Its ^ay until the collision ocourred. 

**Thi8 eourt has recently had occasion to apoiy this rule of 
the right of vay. In Leni^rtz v, Funii. 8£4 111. kpp, 180, opinion by 
Mr, Presiding Justlee Srldley, it vms held that as plaintiff's cer 
was approaching froa the right, under the statute It had the right of 
way, and that it was the duty of th« driver of the oth«5r oar ap^roaohing 
the Intersection Ho then ©top it, or «»ufflolently oheok Its speed, 
so as to allow plaintiff's car to pas? in front of it.* * * * 

"We are earnestly urged by eounsel for plaintiff to fix 
definitely the dlstanee of an automobile from a street intersection 
when It can toe said to be within the statutory description of s 
vehlole • approaching along interseetlne highways from the right*. 
While we hold th&t Dlalntiff's automobile, according to the evidence 
before us, came within this description. It would be very difficult. 
If not Impossible, to lay down a rule in precise terms of measure* 
meat applicable to all eesea. ^wsver, we suggest this: fh^t a 
vehlole Is approaching an intersection from the right, within the 
meaning of the statute, tand entitled to thft right of way when, on 
Its left, on an interssoting street, another vehicle is anoroachlng 
whose driver. In the extrciee of clue care, would or should see that 
unless he yielded the right of v/ay the vehicles might or v-oulci collide,* 


»»*ttiitni. » r.;f ni •MW^felr* 9M £tm t* t« II *4» ul 9»Mt 

•isfrtii 06 Sltfov isevt»«[ tt»bm<:^ t-f**«8fiJtMo «« )j^i;tftfTS(»v» frift •«t»l0M 

•i&oxi i9q B^lXm ilS «^ Oe ff«»«>^ . .. ..ww^ ^iui^ teXlitit*} 

d.t«'«- _ ^ ,, ».„,i;.r ,9irflerA «XXufoJ to #•«• 

tfjaxiJ 111- '?»1^ t?^#r^ «nf? •fi^ro^oilw" 

-f^; . ■.?^^, ;r-, ; :. - «i ;Jo0«ttr« e*ttilaiJiXq 

IfOV XA'" A^i 


till Oll^ 
t «« 09 


tl SMfar 

• »£ir "fftv «ify xav ^« *« e-efcf^lY Ml %—Um 


Again, in th« oftt« of mMU ▼• HimiMffr* ^^ m. ApP- «8t plaintiff 

va« a passenger in 3tr^<3«*8 esr irf&lQh waa prooaeding aaat on North 

ATantta, and the defendant, Mansager, was driving north on Beriar 

Straat in Aurora, Illinole. 5treode*a oar entered the Intersection 

firat and vaa at leaet two-thirde of the r$Lf aereea the interaeotion 

when the oollision occurred. The teetiaon|r shoved that the oar 

driven by Man eager struok the Streede ear at the right rear wheel, 

spun it around ana then the Streede oar finally turned over at a point 

eaat of the intereeotion. Nanaager testified th&t ^'-treede'e car waa 

70 to 75 feet west of the intersection when he first eaw it and 

that hie own oar ^aa then 60 to 6§ feet south of the &&m» point. In 

that case the court s&id; 

"The driver approaohlag fr^n the right has the right of 
way over one appro&ohing froa the left, unless the car on the right 
ia sufficiently far away, ao that If being driven with due care, 
it will not reach the intersection until the oar from the left can 
paas * * *. Any other interpretation of the statute would encourage 
racing to the interaeotion. It is the purpose of the law to give 
the driver on the right a ^reference in passing through the inter- 
section and it la the duty of the driver on the left to respect 
that right in accordance with the rule herein laid down« A driver 
on the left owea a duty to the driver on hla right to approach an 
intersection with sufficient ©are to permit the latter to exerciae 
hi© right of way." 

The plaintiff farther oitee as to the saae effect, Jofanaon v, liuite^ 

g47 111, App, 372; la^t v. Out ten. 229 111. App. 406; McCarthy v. 

|Mla» 236 111, App, 300; riaher v. Johnson. S38 111, App, 25, Upon 

ooneideration of all the evidence the trial court reached the conclusion 

thfit French had the undoubted ri^t-of-way ».nd thst Shel ton's conduct 

in dashing Mirough the intereeotion showed a conscious indiffarsnee 

to the duty he owed to cert a proaohing from the right, 

Mhen we o&«e to consider the auestions of wilful and -anton 

conduct, negligence and of contributory negligence, we find that these 

are questions of fact for the consideration of the Jury, In non-Jury 

eases the finding of the trial court la entitled to the ^aae weight 

as the verdict of a jury. In the case now here on appeal the trial 

ttlitttml^ ^ jms^ An Uttf iStmKMUM ^ *JikUSi ^ <*««i» '^t* sU ,ala^ 

iiett^i^^'^aSal '»M i»iB»««A %av •/!# to mJbtiiiS^9v3 laosX 9^4» »av ham f*%n 
n<w 9sis iMMji $»wMl* Xfi9^^f»9i 90f •»n'Ure9o aeiftill«« Mft a«iifr 

ajiiw TA^ i« » i »iyt» t »<iil^ ^nilii«^ •rt^ttsfffiii .Jt^^Mw^yiiJ •4' 1« fas* 

»,f*.. . f '.,3S j3^i,t t&ii jwih«r mii^^m^ial $>/& t* tiHv a%»t *r ©t of 
•"^'* t0 il^trcMi t«»l m 9t 06 OMfir ««»r tmp ffwo alid Kaffir 

fftJUMt $*wm iMft ftt** #«ilf 

J^ii .^tf^I ©lit «o^t B£ii^OAcnq<iJiB sue inro %»■•' 

l#»«««r»^ai nAt of saiOAn 

-.v.M. ;.■;... i ^ tih^f- "* ^' 'rtvm (Mir 

■£w wan? • '-"-* -^-iifj 

.t^ L^ .^r , , l^fiaS jSfS •q«|A ♦«! T*l 

»ft. . . , •' - .Q^kMl^Sk .^ !l2^^ia torn ,*fffk. Alt §6® ^jOAil 

•>^^l*f #4t fluent s«lfte«Mmr ft a<««e »# ft»v<» ftif X^fir^ •ii' 9$ 

■Ci«t-^^i8 nl •V»-«L ■'■•; ■••"■■ n<i.t.f*n^i»hivam0 ftdST "tot ?• $fic»X^«*ir|» •*• 

lAltt e^^ XB»qc\z AC tt^vfl von •a«o 9sii nl •rttfl t to }ol6*f«v •<!# •« 

oourt heard and esw the wltn^iaes imd In passing upon their oredlbillty 
h£d the opportunity to oonslder their appearanoe, oonduot and ^eneanor, 
their candor, tBim^se, and the probability or Improbability of their 
statenents. Under the rule that applies It was exoluslTely within 
the proTlnoe of the court to detemlne the weight and credenoe to 
be given to the respaotlve witnesses* It appears upon this question 
that the trial oourt, no doubt, oonsldered the evidence of the several 
witnesses sAd as to whether there was eontz^dlotlons In their state- 
ments, and r«^aehed the conclusion that the plaintiff had sustained its 


%der the eireuastaneee w« are of the opinion that the 

finding of the trial oourt was supported by the evldenee and this 
cottft will be unable to hold, «^on the record and briefs in this ease, 
that the Judgment entered Is so manifestly contrary to the preponderance 
of the evldenee as to recuire reversal, CM the contrary, we believe 
that the Judgment entered by the court v&s fully Justified and it is 
therefore affirmed. 


.;WB«r.: . ■:«? <r!W «a?: . aiusa 

mA. 242 


1^i« Is an &ppefil by tht def^ndsnt froa an order entered en 

June 18, 1940, to aaen<3 an order of Deeeaber 6, 1939. The order and 

Jttdgaent of Deeeaber 6, 193@, is at follo««| 

"Motion i>lalntlff Jary wedTed and trial ex parte by Court 
finding defendant C, H. Mlley guilty as charged in plaintiff* e etate- 
aent of clala daaages ^^650.0C in Tort, Judgment on finding versua 
C. H. Mlley t650«00 and eoate specl&l finding of aallee and aallce 
body execution to lesae." 

The order appealed froa la aa follove; 

"Motion defendant C. ?«Hey thet order of May 5rd, 1940 be 
▼aoated and set aside sustained. Order of court ocrreot^lng Judgment 
order of Deeeaber 6, 1939 to read &8 follows* Jury vsl^ed. Trial 
ex parte by court - court finds defendant C. n, Mlley guilty of 
Tort as eha3nged In etistement of el&la. The court further finds aallce 
was the gist of the actian and asseeaes daaages st -650,00, Judgment 
on finding agelnat defendant S, n, Mllay for 1660.00 and costs and 
that execution Isf^ue srainet the body of defendant, Aopeal Bond set 
fit 1750.00.* 

In support of plaintiff's aotion to amend the order of 

Deeeaber 6, 1939, a sifom petition x»b filed, alleging that the court 

aade a finding that the defendant v^^s guilty of awillelous oonduct end 

that aallee was the gist of the action, and that a «e«orandua of said 

finding appeers on the file, i«hioh '^^se transcribed by the Clerk to 

readt "Special finding of aalioe, body execution to issue." The 

petitioner aeJts that the court correct its Judgment to read; "Court 

finds defendant C. R. Mlley, guilty of tort, as ohar^•d In statement 

of claim and the Court further finds th&t malice is the gist of the 

action and aseeaees damages at $650.00 and costs and execution to 

issue against the body of defendant nunc oro tune as of l^eoember 6, 1939. 


«. XI » J 

bits <r«»fir&iie« ^0Ci:olXsi^ to i^^-^^? ; l^f: «d;l ^bAS saiMil ^ tbae 


■ JH«ff?§i- : 


■V3df< «;.; . 


sdJ »i <i»IXi»e^ 



'-nxs. e^aoo 0iii« 00. 

• diSS^i ,%! 1€KJiK<< 

^^ a^^ SSfi •«><! 


On th« li«»arlng of the notion th« olerlt of th« eotart testified 
that ho nado an ontry on tli« file "Jury <»lv©<l, oir parte, ^ #50.00, and 
oetts, epeoial aalioo*; th^t his «ntry in the ninute book roads, '*Jury 
WftlYe<3, trial mc parte by court aofftndant guilty, Aaa&ges 1650,00, and 
costs special wislioo**. The half sheet '^as off^^red In ©vldtnos and the 
order of December' 6, 1939, was read in the record* 

It is the contention of the defendant th^t the Mitnioipal 
Court has control ©irer its records and proeeedlnga for a period of 
30 days, but after such period its pover to aaend Is confined to 
clerical errors and matters of aere form, and these aay be corrected 
to sake the reeord confora to the fact; hut that the plaintiff felled 
t© prod%me such eYideno* recittired by law to warrant the court in 
eorreoting its order after 30 digre fro« the date Judgment was rendered, 
and that the aotion of the trial Judge in correcting the judgment ?/»» 
erroneous and contrary to law, 

^ile the petition to eorreet the Judipient was presented 
aere than 30 fSaye after the entry of the original Judgment, the court 
had the power to correct such a Judgment vhere the motion was based 
ttpoa written meaoranda identified by the clerk of the court and admitted 
to be part of the records of the court, i^nd whert the Judgment to bt 
oh&ng:ed was changed in wording and fowi only. One of the rules of the 
Municipal Court In force June 1@, 1@40, permitted the correction of 
elerlc&l aistakes in Judgaente or records of Jad^ent© &t any time 
upon due notice and motion to the opposing party. Rule 130 of Hevised 
CiTil Practice %lea provides thst "Clerical aistakes in Judgaents or 
orders or errors, arising therein froa any accidental slip or oaiseion, 
aay at any tiae be corrected by the court on motion, and the court aay, 
at any time, and on such teras as to costs or otherwise as the court 
aay think Just, aaend any defect or error in any proceedings, and all 
necessary eunendnients shall be aade for the purpose of determining the 
real ouostlon or ftssue raised by or depending on the proceedings," 


box ,00,OdSv 8«fsamil!> ,x*fi!*rg JejRfc«»l«f- tivoe xd fPifi<i xn Imltt ^hti^tB^ 

4&«'^ ^»f»i^[^l •^a£ 9Ai ve^t tv»f 0€ %«lla t»Mc 114 t«Xl«»9aY«e 

>i^/;-^i;«;; «cl? ^Itf»yt»t90 ml •j^eC Xait^ «£^ to aol9&9 9da tmdt ham 

n«*!c9ii9o bus MM*a«w» 

ti99Md ^i»v aali^m 9tif «*V«itv tn!»9rjgfejy( M d9&9 $09Vt99 9t «I«W»^ 9da i«4 

tJim£>0 &it7, ttuoQ f4i "^o ;^»X» f>4t \{ci ^oXIti^n*!)! jO^sirrwMii a«t9ity Aw<itf 
TfT f^«$$Xirt9q «0>tX ,8X ftmirt. e9*tol al tnvnO l»qt9imfil 

«fioX«ei 'ji/««a(i*J!?t tfl« Jio^i mi.9^i9tis ^l9l*iR ,07,»Tt»e 10 tT»6^« 

,t^e tlJU<»e» tuiSiJ ^»4^ ,at:X;fOjil fie ilUOQ 9^ Xd h9!t99t19» «<i «mX«^ XIM t« 1«« 

^ttioo tJI^ fts »i*X«n<»4^c } 9tsn9i Aouo flw ba« «»aiX^ ^9 $M 

XX« bofn ,4:^ib9Beoic Xi'i ftMtaJb v» l>«i»«« t^«liC AalM vm 

9Ai :^imMnt>t9b ic •soq'iiur, > Hi^Aii «4[ xx«ila »lii««ftiHMM vi«o**ma 


From th« brlcfe filed in this action, th«r« ai^pe&rs to b« 
no disputo l>etwe«n the parties as to the power aund authority of the 
trial oourt to amend its reeord after 30 days had elapsed, folloving 
the entry of Judgment, where the court had presenred 8<Mie aeaorial or 
record of its Judgment, And where the aaendnent r«l£ited to the fora or 
language of said Judgment. &au>ng several of the oaees cited and ealled 
to our attention, is the ease of fttliiayd v. Brewers Malting Coaoany^ 
185 111, App, 254, i*her'«ih It appears that the trifi.1 oourt had the 
pcivtr to jMsend its reeord fro« "Seventeen hundred and thirty and alxty 
eents" to "Seirent««»n Hundred thirty dollars, siirty oenta", after the 
escpir^ticm of 30 ^sye. To the same eff eet is the ease of KQii?fej.8ld^ ▼, 
Hieholaon^ 25 Cal, App, 160, in vhieh case a nunf org tuno order ^&§ 
sustained permitting an amendnent to the original order of dlasissal 
for want of prosecution to include language providing for the r©tum 
©f property to defendant which h*d fee^^n previously taken froa her. In 
this case the oourt held that la a ease for olala and delivery (replevin) 
where a plaintiff has seeured pesiession of the property and the aefendsuEit 
obtained a dlnaissal of the action for vant of preeeoutian, the oourt 
could enter a nunc -oro tun^ order to direct the return of the property 
%9 the defendant vher« the original order inat^vertently omitted t© 
direet said return of ?ald property. 

In the esse before us the trial oourt found the defendant 
guilty in tort and assessed the dsaagee at ^650.00, and further expressly 
found the defendant guilty of aalielous conduct in such fora «s to 
order the ieguance of a body «x«^cution, »lien the oourt diecovered the 
Inadvertent entry of its eleiii In rs'duelng its findings to Judgment, he 
could rightfully correct the ol^rleal ai stake ana change the language 
of the finding to eonfora with the original decielon^ a aeaorandwn of 
which was preserved in the olerk'e alnute hook which was used in the 
courtrooa on the date of the entry of the Judgment wherein the special 
finding of malice appeared in the clerk's handwriting as "Spec. Hal.*. 
This entry was aade hy the clerk, pursuant to general Instruction 
froa the oourt. The clerk testified thibt on the saae day that the 


-YTt©iit««jq ,&*rt J-ttfoo fill •rr»«tw ,3ra»«^J6«it iis 'i^^S# •JW 

ilftligitf? ,Mi?ltf-^. „ina.l!t:ifl •▼ kU6M "^^^ »*»« »<»^ «* ,a«i#fl»??* iiro •* 
000 idl«s;| ^ai tadi vtmi^qA <^i fti«^«/br ,HS ,c(c4 rXXl MI 

9)X'^ t^&'xo :^.| ijr fl^a MM * ^^^o R9lftt Hi ^QHl pq%k ,X«A C^'$ ijWtiltJfllltf 

(niY«iq9';} t^«i»XX«)l> &ajs s/aXo %e% turn ^ iii t^dt kX^A Ituo* td^T ••«» iliit 

fill jkn&cl $'xut>9 Xaif 1 »4t 9if ftolfd •aao tuBLY aX 

9 oxt.r 9sfi wri- 6*1* •l«^©Xii XacX'J'sXo atf* ^otnof xXXwl^il^J^i *Xiro» 

1« «»2ii>aii*zo0«$r a «aoX8X^9& X««iXBX«t6 «>4.^ £i^X^ iPXOlflQio ot 3RX6iiXt Mt^ le 

•tf^ ilX bmna e^vr lioX^/ iecd fttamXiP t'^rtvXe »ril ftX 5fTi[9«n:Q t#ii ^8i4w 

Isltfti^t 96$ tUt^^v fattv^l^ul, »A3 \t> x^:^* sAS lis e^At fifsT AC a»iyxt'wc9 

."•LftM .oeq^i" 18 ^inX^XTw&OAfll •*;iK«X9 mU hX A9^ik«iqqA •oIXaoi lo s«ibail 

aeittosrti9!S{l Xsn^a^A ot i&AU»nuq «JhtfXa «tiS x4 mbui a^rv x^tfat •liSf 

^i 3«jai.t x«i' 9Mjt)A 9ii» m> 3 '^i tt^lt sift .^iwoo vif^ «onl 


ftt»<»T« ninttt»« wsrft written by hln, he entered on the regul&ir court 
records kept by the Wuniolpal ««^ourt In «ueh Ofteee* ana knoim a« the 
*h«lf-aheet*, the further entry reciting the finding stgalnet the 
defendaat In the sun of |660,00 In tort, the further finding of "Spec, 
jfndg. of a&llee end iAllee body execution to Isteue." Xt w^s upon this 
Keaoranda before the court that the reoord wae ehanged* 

there It « further case that w».s before this court upon a 
like question, entitled H slzot it Cohen t. Handler. £08 111. App, 312, 
fhe clerk th<>9re erroneously entered of record • as isi denlAl of « aotion 
to Ysoate & Judgment « an order denying a motion to quash an execution 
issued on the judgment. It waa held that the trial court could aisend 
its record after 30 days had elapeed following the entry of «eid original 
jt^gaent, «o es to pemit the order of the oourt to be motion of defendant 
to vaeate Judgment denied, instead of sotion of defendant to ouaeh 
txeeution denied. 

Taking into oonslderstion the facts as they are stated here, 
&M the memoranda that vaa made at the ti»e the Judgisent order ^ras 
e&tered, we are of the opinion thet the oourt vme fully Justified in 
aaendlng its original order - after 30 days had el&peed following the 
entry of dsld order » at vee done in this case* 

fhe order appealed froo will, therefore, be affirmed. 

6ar«fSi* .Mifcis t"iii!«-.D j:?iJ*r^ ftH-J Jail* 6X»{1 . ?R»W3j^i)rt »«*» «> ft#ir5B 

XASl^i . sai^^^XXiilt 0«»<iaX« f!>»H st)B* OS t^fl** »•»••«< nfi 

\am&&f>J:. vo© »iS.* to t»&*so nifl ttneq o» •* on ,yaft«;^iirt 

(it»Br> <>;f tf-ffiA.5a»t»& t<» timt^m )$ l»«ftt«ni «&»lat»5 ^aMrjdift »#j»mv tfT 




'- 31llA 5>4.9 



•m. eottPt HAS eonald«re4 tl» petition ^f '^.^^li^f if^i^-^^-'^^^^ 
rehearing whloh wne filed and tha answer of ftpp0ll9e«pl«.intlf f to 
said petition. It «pp««P8 that appellant Is in error In rsfsrrlng 
to John Kr&ut89ld9r tie the appellnntf vhere&s the appellant is 
G« R* Mlley and John Krautseldei* le the pl&intlff and appellee In 
this oause. the appellant contends in the petition for rehsarlng 
that no error or mlstsJce was aiade In entering up the Judgment, but 
that the trial Judge ohanged the foi<m of the judgment heeauee he 
eorreoted the finding of malioe in the Judgment suoh aa i^ould support a 
body exeeution. The trial eourt, however. In eoneiderlng the 
Questions before it on hearing corrected the form of the Judgment, 
whioh eorreetion was based upon a written niemoranduai nade by the 
elerk of the court at the tine the Judgment i^ae entered. Upon 
motion of the plaintiff supported by plaintiff's sworn petition, 
the court considered the faote and the law ae applied to a ease ©f 
character before it* The ©etltioner asked that the court correct 
the Judgment to read "Oourt finds defendant C. R, Miley, guilty of 
tert, as charged in statement of claim and the court finds that 
ttalice is the gist of the action and assesses dusages at fd&O.OG 
aad costs and execution to issue against the body of defendant 
nun^ uro tun^ as of December 6, 1939." v^fhile the petition to correct 
the Judgment was presented more than 30 days after the entry of 



< ' 

Ci^ x^ .^ «^^- 

tti »»Xi»<^ii baa fittnl&lq 9M9 »i -t9bteBtutn>i luCol. bam x^liii . . 
S«li««iJ»i tot a©l;?£;f«q ojlt sJ •Anfttooo t«j»/X»w« •!» .•»ir)»e aWt 

eil ••0ad8cr »ct«ssJ!»tfl •dt to and tii frt^miifa t^A^t l»tt$ edf ^Tadf 

iKMiti .JBk^mrtiTfls »«v trnKQ^i •rfi^ *«fjtt ®«l!f *« itBoo tiff to i'stle 
,nol#i;f»Q rrfow« »»m;fRlAXQ ^d 5»^norfnjef8 ttiJalAlq 9d$ to aoI^mi 

to 0(BA9 a Oil fcot/c^ya •• w»X «iJ? fen* aJoal •rft ^»t«(5Xtiioo trntoo vrft 

to t^-Tiwi ,T«Xi»' . , tii-«J&«»t»fe hAbU J-MfcO* ftavt 09 fOMmtoC •!» 

*#,ri:J i?«n ^rttftte «riJ Dn« ©XaXo to sa^mwStitM nt i^«^«il* •« ,/no;^ 

00« s»I^AaA£ a»a«»eait &«»( fldl^Ois nAt to 9tl|^ ntf^ si •eilMi 

innhn^lvb te xbocT sii^ 9«»fll«»^« mtmul ot /iol#in>»ir9 Aoji t;rto9 km» 

^o&TtQ£> c;r «ioi;ri.;r#cr ftficr oXIAV *«er.ex «S i»dai«99a te S9 JttdL fl2£t AAift 

tC XtSna Hits 1'*>Jt,>i ay.-!^, 0* rtail'f -af'-ir- F><--ifl989«so «#■■.:■ J-RMilfftV^ 9d$ 


ttut origln«l Judgn«nt, th« oourt had th« oover to correct such a 
Judgment wherv the notion was based upon written memorandA Identified 
by the olerk of the court end ednitted to be p&rt of the records 
of the eourt, and where the Judgment to be changed was ch&nged in 
form only. 

Upon the facts as they appear and upon the authorities 
of law considered by this court, including the case of ieiffer v, 
French . 376 111, 376, the trial oourt ^as fully Justified in correcting 
tilt foriB of the Judgment that was entered and now before this oourt. 
From the briefs filed in the motion there seeae to be no dispute as 
to the power and authority of the trial oourt to aaend its record 
after 30 days had elapsed, where the court had preserred soae memorial 
or record of its Judgment, and where the amendiient related to the 
fozna or language of said Judgaent« 

^^B have reached the conclusion that the court was fully 
Justified in correcting the form of the Judgaent, after considering 
the facts and authorities as indicated, and, considering the opinion 
that has be®n filed on thie qutstion, we adhere to the opinion, <e 
reach the oonclueion that the rehearing as prayed for by the defendant- 
appellant be denied* 

- IBEKE- Alalia DENIED. 


BSRSl/AMB DENIS £. mitLlVAH, ^i^ OOmW., 


•tXno viol 

|nlJ&»Tx®o ft J fc»jttl^a«t lilfft »inr *«jjr«a JUiiJ »i« ,8?5 ♦1X1 dT.? l ijifn t l 

• tt^oe £i£$l fnt0t»d ^o£s hiiM kntm^Sm ft»t# tKUt tiimtqilkvt 9fit te vrot oiiiT 

•i» aim^l^ «A ft«i oi •«c»9t ovviU iioi#»4 ftji^ jii J^xit ttoivtf «tt cwvl 

(^oooi o9i ha9am o; ^<i&oo X^lvf oitr to \tAt^nm/» ^8U| utovoc; •<» 9$ 

lAl'xoa»m oeea S9v*io&»mq &a4 tisw«« «i(^ oicoifi^ «ib»«Q«Xo l^d 9%»k Ot «o^t« 

o^# el b&i»S9t ^rfiottfiaoiw o^y on^ifv 4ii« «tMM9tet 9ti te M«o«« ^e 

•twiflqiAwt Mdo to osaarsiMkX ^» ■nt«t 

Xllu'i »Av tiMoti ^iit »«ii^ aolotiioAoo «titir toifmoFi 9W9A ov 

Siilifttisflc^ iMi^ts t^jfOffi^ftart «£i7 to mot oisit «iffl#aoic<io« oi l>«ltX;rftfft 

iloiai<4« «c<j^ ®fii^oft,i«iieo «&«« «6ots»oiMi s? «eiti<3«j|^tfo Aim otoot 0(tf» 

»^ ,a€>iai<se eMar c^i^ <n«£a>$ ov «m>i$a«tft< MJUif m Milt iiootf ««il ijutt 

'iasSmvy^^ 9dt x4 <itot &«xan<9 a» is«ttm9JSan 9M tntif xioloolonoo wit itooov 

•INiijroA «4f 9vMil«qQpo 


•^» 243 

This le an *pp««l by the plaintiff from & Judgnant entsrad 
by the court in favor of the defsndsnts, no tvlths tending the verdict 
of a Jttry. 

Cto May 15, 1938, the pl&iatiff %ras riding ae & guest in 
the beok seat of an automobile traveling Siorth on Danen Avenue in 
the Glty of Chicago. A street oar of the defendants w&b traveling 
south on lamen Avenue end while making a left turn at 14th Btreet 
eollided vith the automobile in which plaintiff v&s riding, injuring 
the plaintiff. In plaintiff's oomplaint, filed Bepteaber 20, 1938, 
it la ehsrged in eubetanee that the def ^'^nd^nta by their agents and 
eei^ants negligently (2) failed to keep a proper lookout for other 
vehicles; (3) operated aid etreet ear at a high and d&ngerous rate 
of apeed,; (4) made a left turn without giving any warning or sounding 
any bell or aignal; (5) fsiled to provide eaid street e&r with auitable 
brakes or stopping devioeej end (6) proceeded to make a left turn 
without giving the right of ^&y to the automobile in which plaintiff 
was riding. 

In defendant*8 answer, they denied generally all of the 
eh&rgea of negligenoe and denied ths^t the plaintiff was in the exercise 
of ordinary care for hie own safety on the occasion in question. A 
trial was had before the court and a Jury, At the close of plaintiff's 
evidence the defendants moved for a directed verdict of not guilty, 
and the court reserved ruling thereon. At the close of &11 the 
evidence the defendants renewed their motion for a directed verdict 

itiOm jk»-iHk 


S ^ 2 4- 

f C^ 




Ar^^etfB^ iff»«^|»*r|, .a fifonl l'tX3«isI^ ©dj xdi I#»<!(':'« «» «•* •■tilt 

♦tTu»t * to 

nsi^o tftt jr&«)i3Ca^«>X '{«^r9»t<7 ^ f99^ 9$ beliMiTt (S) itl;Ni«)4X|t»fl 93aavt99 

iBf.^n sijerr«i]|eft& £>iij» %i!; ,<&» i99%t» biM-t h9ii^9qt> (C) }R«Xoiji»v 

unlBatfes to a<iiirt«v ^nis ^nXvi:)^ tsmiA^iv tnus 3\9t s «JMmb Cf ) ;iN»«qa to 

•Xcfjstlue d^Xv i«» ^9919% hi9m 9hi:v<rtq ^i bMliMt i^) ilmt^U f XX«d fcu 

ttiJaX^Uc ffeiiiw aX 9ii<SomotU9 9d9 o# ^J^v^ to ^n^Xt till BaXvX$ <^£ioAlXv 

•Jit 1^0 XX* x;XX«ii»ni«^ b^Xiitfi X9A$ «t»««iifl «AtfiulJii»l»fi aX 
9919^9X9 9jAJ flX ««» tUXifftX^iq 9A3 'ioAt A#Xot& £»«« •aii»iXX9«fl te s*yiAtf» 

<v .noiJ»»«p al «©i8t'?n« Qd;? rtc t3^«ljs« owo 9ltl tol »t«o fiaixXfefO lo 

«*{^XXui <^oii ^e i9tJsn9r b9t99nlk 9 lol &*toib 9inattt9J9b 9dt 99a9btr9 

»d? XXa to ftseXo •£i^ M •iio«n9£t;t 'gnllm &«in»ef;i <f*tuoo 9il} i^«ui 

i9lb^i9'r b9t99rLih 9 not iioiyon tlansU b9m9ti9n 9tii»bn9'\9t) 9At •MislkiT* 


of not guilty, and th«» motion wat allowed ae to paragraphs or ohargas, 
3, 5 and 6, and the oourt raservad hia ruling aa to paragrapha or 
ohargaa, 2 and 4, The oaee was subnitted to the Jury on the oueetions 
of whether the aotorman negligently failed to keep a proper lookout 
for other vehlolee; whether he failed to glTe a proper naming before 
auiklng a left turn; and whether the olalntlff exereleed due eare for 
hia ©ire fefety. Mo objeotiona were aiada toy either party with reference 
to the glTen or refuaed instructions. The Jury returned a verdict 
finding the defendants guilty and assessing the plaintiffs damagea at 
the euffl of $5,000, and a Jud^ent w@e entered upon the said verdlot 
in favor of the plaintiff and against the def ndanta for the sum of 
is, 000, 

thereafter, on June 5, 1§40, the def *n<5ant9 filed their 
notion for a Judgnent notwithstanding the verdlot, giving as grounds 
for said notion, in substance, (1) that the oourt should have directed 
a not guilty verdict at the oloee of the plaintiff's evldenoej (2) 
that the court should have direoted a not guilty verdict at th© close 
of all the evidence; (3) that the evldeaoe did not show that the 
negligenoe on the part of the defendants was the oroxlmate cause of 
the injuries to the plaintiff; (4) that the evldenee did not show that 
the defendants were guilty of negligenoe as ohainged in the complaint; 

(5) that the evl^lence did not show that at the tlae and place in 
question the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care for his own safety) 

(6) that the evldenee did not tend to prove the osuse of sction alleged 
in the complaint; (7) that the coaplaint did not state a csuse of action 
against the defendants; (8) that nQ cause of action against the 
defendants was stated In the coaplaint. On July 11, 1940, a Judgment 
order was entered allowing the said aotlon of the defendant for a 
Judgment notwithstanding the verdlot, which is the Judgnent order 
appealed froa in this ea8#| 


to ouHd «jsiir 19% tio^i^a: tub »ji^ tanl^^ £1114 MUnlAlc ^As \c ^otaI a! 

•000 ^«$ 

ihmii^t^ «s SloiTZ^ 4^aJL&ieT ad? ^itOAiBiii IvSoa Saitm^^l e tot oci^Toa 

l»»;$^i^»^l& ev3ii £>XMOfi& ^tiiod sil^ i&tii (X) (•oa^^soliuv nZ tnoi;fon bla^ not 

? c C^Xins ^ofl » Smt99tlt) »v«4 &X«rofia J-svoe •sii Suit 

19 »«fiM^s «^>8«ixoi<; extir a«v a#««&iitii9f> ^Ai "^ '^d? no •onoalisoa 

$Mi w»£ia ;ro£i &XJ^ $9Iii«I^Xt9 9tif i&a$ C>) p1i:fe!lsXq tdtf et •9Jt*urt«i 9il# 

;t«(XftX^ae>a <»i:t^ at b&jpAjAo sa scm^^X^^o 'to %Sllt; ■faMl^9l»b 9At 

MA t«#|<} i>tu 9ni} td^ Id ^«i(tf voxfe /oo Jbl^ t»fl«£»iT» o^} i&Ai (fi) 

^?9te« awci iiXi!f <iCit »'iftO Mri> to iB^inox^ 9Sli eil ummi ttlffUsXq #41* aoX<««irp 

ft«^«XX.3 noi;ro% to ••»«• tdf oronq of &flo;f 7oi« dXfe ooflobiro ad;! l«tf# (d) 

fsei^o^ tcr •fttffto « •;r«.l& toa &U: iaXAlqmep tAS s&ti$ (V) ;tfaJtaiq«oo oMY «i 

»4il 3i(tni*-^M «fXt«iJt tc 9at' 4i^ (d) {3}fiAf.a9toJ& 911^ f«nX«9« 

JaAfia9l»b 9sU to fioij^oet Stl*^ ttd^ i^lvtiXlm b^n^tm 9«w loJi'no 
n9£i3o Sa»m;^bifl i^ii 9l 4oJUi^ ,^oXI»asY 94;} T^aJtba'^ini&t^taM fnoj^i^art 

Th« aooi6ent In question took: plaoe about 11:55 O*oloek 
on the night of ^und«y. May 15, 1936, at th« interseotlon of D&aen 
ATenue and 14th street. Oanan Avenue runs north &n6 south and has 
tvo sets of stx^et ear ti<««ks for northbound and southbound street 
cars* Xt Is about 38 feet vide froa curb to ourb, 14th street 
begins at Dasen Avenue running east. It is about 38 feet wide froa 
ourb to curb and also has tvo sets of street oar traeks. westbound 
14 th Street ears turn north on tHuHm Avenue, %nd eastbouBd 14th 
street ears run sou^ on Danen Avenue and turn east on 14th street. 
Daaefi Avenue street ears go strtiie^t north or eouth on Pasien Avenue, 
vhile 14th Street ears go south on Damen Avenue as far as 14th street 
and then malce a left turn east on 14th Street. According to the 
laotoranan, there are more Dsnen Avenue street oars that go straight 
south than 14th i^treet ears that turn east into 14th Street, and also, 
recording to the motorm&n, the left turn at that oomer is an 
unusually sharp one and, of the four turns in the course of his run, 
that one is the sharpest turn he aakes. On Daaen <^.venue, beginning 
&bomt 72 feet south of the north building line of 14th street, there 
is a viaduet running froa that point southward about three blocks to 
17th r>treet, the witch on the Daaen Avenue ear traek, where the 
14th Street ears tuni, begins at the north building line of I4th 
Street* The eti^et level on Damen Avenue is :bout 3 feet 4 inches 
lower at the viadt^st than it ie at the interseotlon of 14th J^treet, 
Southbound traffic on Daaen Avenue moves downgrade froa the inter- 
eeetion of 14th street to the viaduct, while northbound traffic on 
Daaen Avenue froa the viaduct to 14th Hreet aoves upgrade* 

About 7:30 o» clock In the evening of Msy 15, 1938, i^dvard 
^tor, the driver of the automobile in question, conveyed his sister 
to a danoe and wa? to call for her about 12:30 that night. 

i99lo*0 ^6lll ItrOiiA 99»I<H ^^^ «»£r»«0D ml 9it»bi9Ml 
aA£l mi'r A»ii»v^ neiMid •#»»ijr^. dl^^I biui »ifa»TA 

■oil 9S^tv *»»t .^^^ 3'««S.- . i». •«i3«tf 

feawcdt , -T«fr t«' ' ,jrf oaXa JtriiB rf'ure o^ dltM9 

• tes^ir^' ti$h! mi ta<' om: i^uimwA tmmmG ae ditto* am ■<xa9 $9^iSB 

^9»mrA n^m^' n'-- rfJ.tma to ii!Jio«i :T.{l||l4*x;}a 03 «*ifto *«©«t#ft «Hra«TA a*a«C! 

9A& oj j^fllft^ooei^ ,^»in#a iJi*x a« t^nw antti t\9Z 9 mMtm tmdf bam 

Stfr[t'r^*'> en .t,-,rf* g-T.-n *«^tK^^8 »»fi«iv^. ff»««(S r«(MR *%* •<f<M(t ,fiMn»i^<Mii 

tdfl .» :t<3.«ft n*{&;t tAif^ stse t»e«iit& ttt^t Mudf tf}»»i 

^innl%9d .htyrt-^v .n«.-^?-' nC .c«3r«a •!! mir* l»«<riJMhi »Af «i 9jm> #ad^ 
»<ieiiir »t9* ^athXtstti Mnen •ri* 1© dt&roe *««1t St 7irotfii 

oJ asCsMsXcf f^-^si* i-no-'f.'-- ?n:?,-j!^.ftfc? ^nlco ;t?.ff;» K&t\ ^inatn ituAmlw « ai 




il;r»'I . iieaan^.r 


-H;! •^- . ■ ■> ■ s^llgsWrftf. 


.. . .;^.......:^«oa all 

^068** ■•'•■'■" e^*<WA,ir •?■•«■ 


.«e&J »... ,.. :.. ,,. 


.^ a-^etrnoo ,aoX^a» 


v'^j'^r ^tt'O'i^- - ; 


The atttoaoblle was hert, viiile the lleansa vice in th« n«a« of their 
mother. At that tlae a friend of ^ward Zator* teno Grodeoki, 
aocoapanied hla. After taking hit eister to the Sanoe, they paaeed 
hf the hoae of plaintiff and invited him for a ride. The three of 
them drove arotind In the nftighborhood all evening and for some time 
were in OougXas Park. Edward Zator and ^eno arodeeki sat in the 
front of the automobile, and plaintiff sat in the baek seat all of 
the tim«» Ea:ward Zater driving the stttomobile. At Hi 45 o*eloek, 
they atar^ed driving towards the danoe hall, whioh was at Madison 
Street and Hamlin Avenue, to piek up Za tor's sister. %ey drove 
north on 'Jamen Avenue from Slst Street and from 17th street they di^ve 
under the visduot north towards 14th Street, driving on the east eide 
of Damen Avenue, with the rii^t wheels of th@ i^utomobile slightly 
over the extreme east rail of the northbound traeks. There wss no 
other traffic there, sad the entire three bloeks under the viaduct, 
&8 well as the intersection of ^amen Avenue and 14th Street, were 
wAll lifted, and the street was dry. 1%e lights in the street car 
tm well as ia the headlights of the automobile were on at the time 
of the aoeident. It is euggested. by the plaintiff that, vsp to that 
point, the facts are not disputed, but tha^t, as to how the accident 
occurred, there is a conflict ia the testimony. The witneeaee to the 
accident for the plaintiff *?@re the driver of the automobile, the 
plaintiff &nA three street oar passengers. 

The question here involved Is whether the defendants werm 
guilty of negligence in thcjjperstlon of their street car at the time 
and place where the collision between the st^^eet oar and the automobile 
in which plaintiff was riding took place. At or about the ol&ce 
where the seeldent occurred, the street car tracks are level with 
the street, Damen Avenue leing a north and south street, and the 
street car being at the intersection of 14th Street for thepuroose of 
making an east turn, the motorman stopped his car at the north line 
of the intersection in order that a change in the switch might be 

•d.J i.i /*•■: • 'A^X ba^ f>l*ir&3 > ««Xairoe oi •^•11 

I90«l£»i»^ d'A «i»w dil^^d.1« «IX«if «a«!«& •Jin sMs^rot ^nlvHb t9t^stt9 %8<£^ 

•▼«n£ t«^ ;f»«*t#a dtf^Ti cetl imA i9ifi.iSi 9nlS: vent •&«»▼▲ a»iutci §ie jCttoA 

t;i^figjtli 9£i^<m<»$if9. 9^ lo sl«>«i<v ^it^jtn »ei# j(&l¥ ,*i|ni«ta mtiu^ to 

«to«&ftiv 9^i noJ^iur •3l9o£4 ^etdt ^tJtim *eiS btm ,»T9tf^ ollla?^ i^xiio 

s'sov ,;r<9»<i;ra AtJ^l Smm mitwrk iiojnpf? to aeiit&es^^iaX 9di «« XX«v •* 

nM9 fortta 9dJ aX s9£t8XX silT «t^& dii¥ ;9«>t;re eifsf &a» Jb^Sti^tl IXftv 

^^i£ it? ttitiiiifJt:^ )dil^ i(fif ^^ift3jpr« r .JTacbieos «iiir to 

^iiol>i90j& •»; vo£i o^ «.$ ,^j?£(l iu4 ,|}ft?Arq«X& ;^9i9 oiik «^o«t tuS$ ^ialot^ 

tif o:t a«iiS9filXw »il?' ^y^piGmti 9-9^3 6£is al Soiltu&9 « tX o<i»ifc^ ^Jl^oirurooo 

sjW ,«XXtfo«o^gfjg msLS to •twTX'xt vol JaefcXoosi 

9n«v a^iKAlb>«oti axitlulw oi bevlorn mUvt^mp oif? 

••ii) oif.^ :wUjn*c'6('»tl^ fU •9«»^iX9«a te t;fXXi/S oji^ -^atJa »r.; "<••--•.■- v., ^,-; noXtlXXoo »it> ^noxlw oosXq 6iu 

•OAl .ooelq if«o# ^M,f,' f-v ^i.:», . •nUeXnicr lioiifv «i 

Ati¥ XoYoi 9-jjp s.j^o^i* too looKd-a ©rfJT ,.6e»'!f 111 ■-'?>- 3'«i*Ri8.oj» oiit rtoxhr 

»£l;r bfiQ «^s«Tar8 dl9iro« hMm ditton » 9«lo^i oimovA somK! «#oo«t}i oi(y 

to »eo«ni/c»xl^ icl: 3»9ntB, jtf»X te iiol;footn9^aX nAit #e 30X00 lao ^oon^a 

ofiix d;rtcf> odtf ;r.«i 'sbo titti &OQ«^ot% fluurtoifoffi »iif ,irtji^ sraoo oo lalifon 

o^ ^ft^Xat (login's iitti at »'$a*di> & isJi9 to&io ni noXloosiotflX oil^ to 


■ad« to px^oeeed in making p \9tX turn and had to wait for th<» elgn&l 
of the oonduotor before making the left torn. There le eoaethlng to 
the euggeetlon offered bf the plaintiff that the driver of the auto- 
nobile had no seaas of knoiring hov soon or how fast the street ear 
would aake the left tunai or whether it would sake the turn &t all, 
since it does not AppeSiV that he even knew it wai a I4th Street oar, 
The driver vae not required under the law to etop and wait until the 
aotoraan deeided what he would do, and heeides, under thelaw, the 
driver of the ©utoaobile was required to wetoh for traffic froa his 
/ right. It is the rule of the road and the law, ae well as the 
praotioal rsculrewent for safety, that k vehicle intending to sake 
a left turn should permit a vehicle approaching frwi the right or 
froa the opposite direction to pass unmolested. 

When the ootoraan started the street oar on the curve, the 
street car was 52 feet Morth and at least 11 feet 'est ©f the piece 
of the collision, and according to the teetiiBony of the wotoman, 
the front end of the street car extends 10 feet beyond the wheels 
of the street ear and that vhen the wheels hit the switch the front 
•ad of the street cssr swings charply. There 1» evidence that the tlae 
necessary for the street car to swing over froa its straight southerly 
direction to the point of the collision was Just a aatter of B«cond»* 
As to whether there was a warning by the aotorrsan, %h&X ie a question 
of fact for the jury to pasc upon, without such a warning the driver 
of the autoaobile had no aeane of Judging the aotoraaa*s actions and 
bad a right to ae)?,uae that the street car would wait and let hia pass. 
^e ffiots regarding the approach of the autoaobile to the point of 
the interseotloa whex>e the collision occurred seeae to be that the 
autoaobile was driven froa under the viaduct at a speed of at least 
25 ailes per hour. There le evidence that the driver took his foot 
off the gas when he was approaching 14th Street, and if we consider 
the ohyeioal lay of the street levels it aust be noticed that the 
autoaobile was traveling upgrade. It is urged with eoae force, there- 
fore, that when he took his foot off the gas the speed of the autoaobile 

--e^us sci. 


,.. ]^ttti« aoidra«s3tf8 tjit 


%A9 t|t«nJ» ttilJ J»aT woj! te Hoot w^?* '='«^t"«w "^r. ^iuM»ff o« 6«d ellef«i| 

ixi ««'r 

-'-> 40* «w 


.... -.^ ,.. ^W£j '•-'^ 

•a.,- ..V 


T,- <''^-- 

«., ^- • ^,«.«'^ ...Jr 

■ r: J» ! 11*^ OKr 

... rt»l iiHi i^ifim blumw 
i^aqa toa teoJI^ tl •eaia 

^ii3.;T!<: jc,;.- *r''.? to xfi<3«i*s»? 9AS ot ^aibtoooM ban ,AoJtftiXIo{> *At to 
tXn&£l*tf9a i/i^jtutts 8? I K<m i*v6 ^jh- -^ -• ?«»^*« »iiJ tot t^ji8«»e«ii 

I \tjtft »ri' "-"* *-i^1 to 

^«. <?. « ta iotif^Btr 9A$ tvAiuv «oit m^f'-" " '^ 9lt<ioatiua 

to&iactoo 8vf U fca.s ,Jeo'i?.'^ liJ'il'X -^n £xf e^iGt qq[« aiisyf tui miitv 1*1;^ »riJ tto 

9At 'fiuii b^oifoa »ct nun ii ,X«v^X ^i»9t;t8 ftic<;r to xaI X«oi8VlQ *^^ 

ooiTftfi^ ,00^01 »i8o« riliv i^yutf 8l ifl .•Aftigcfir ^XX8T«tJ asw •Xid©«o^i>A 

Xiefoao;»UB «rf;r to Aooqs atf* M) mAt tto *oet «li! 4oot otf ii»llw tf4SiU ,not 


must h&vt doei*r'a8«d to that it then trereled at a rata of apead 
oonslderably lasa than 23 alles t>er hour; th^t when he reohed the 
center of the street and dleoorered the street oar alaoet on top 
of hia, he then not only stepped on the gae to Bake a turn, but at 
the sim9 time made & turn to hie right to avoid the aoeident. 

Defen<Jant8 contend that the etrett ear did not g^et beyond 
the northbound track of Dasen Avenue at any tine. There ie teetimony 
of a polloe officer that the street oar wat standing on 14th Street,. 
the left end over the east rail on tha north bound DaBien Avenue line» 
That i® where the aoeident eee«» to have occurred. It is further 
urged by the defonSants, however, th&t it vae Dhyelcally iapossible 
for the iBotoraaa to stop the £6 or 2? ton street oar inatantaneoualy 
when he sav the automobile. Plaintiff submits that perhaps thle 
contention ia true, but that aecording to the teetiaony of the sotonaan 
he did exactly what counsel for defendants contend vaa a phyaieal 
inpossibility; th&t the notorman testified that when he slapped on 
the brakes on the street o&r, it did not eontinue to go, it stood etill, 
it came to a cosplete stop; and that this shows his testimony to be 
entitled to little oredenoe. 

Tlie point here is ae to Esther or not the sotoman failed 
to keep a proper look out. There is evidence in the record whleh 
showed that he heard and sav the automobile st the same time, &n<k 
defendants eontend, therefore, thet the purpose of a lookout as 
aoeoaplished, Plaintiff admits that the jsotorman heard and saw the 
autoaobile, but contends that that did not aecompllsh the purpose of 
a lookout, and further contends th&t on the contrary th&t is proof of 
his negligence, since it ^as too late to prevent the accident. Failure 
to keep a proper lookout is negligence as a natter of lav. Crow Naae 
Plate A Wfg. Co . v, Paaaerioh. 279 111, ^p. 103. There ia a 
suggestion and perhaps there is so»e force to the fact that there waa 
8o»e evidence that the gong oh the street oar vas sounded and that there 
was testimony of other witnesses who did not hear the gong sounded. 



b99Ga to etr^i M t» &«l9ir.en;f amA3 ft istdi (m bm^mi^nw^h •▼Aii taOm 

9A3 60if9t:«T act nsif' -'ssfOLd i»« ■•lin SS sitiU •••I tXdjii«6itiieo 

•^fl»5l!>aa miii BIOYA o;t fiAsln aid e^ mvt «i •&«« •ai^ nman •df 
biiot« sd:^ *»«<:? feft^tnoa «*«A?*ii«t»Q 

,J'9!!»«TXi- d#l>i Ko jiaibOAtrt •«w <T«9 ;f«e*t:fa ^d^r jTxd^ ifteilcto •^IIjoo « to 

«9nll 9»i/A»vA fl»««ci fcrnrecf d^ton ftdi b& ttan #e«9 sdt nw^o ban tt^S. ftd^ 

i«dJhiiit si fl .§«'r¥tf£>i»o «ved o;i^ t»ft»« ^Miioes sdt •nodv ti t«dT 

tl»i»e9d«ifa«tft0i <tjR9 d^»o^;r« «i(»9 T$ ia a^S •!(} <^« <!>9 luune^Mi ndi lol 

aidsr 8q.«;dit»^ ^»d:t e;ri«»d&s tli;lfll£i'^ ••Xido««»t&is odt v«a fltd Ji»ifv 

a^l£<If^.lo• tdt te xf^'-mtitBi 9AS of ^iMa9e>«> 7^dJ ?«4 ,»ff^t •! (ioi^ii«fA«9 

XsioXtx^Q M Ziiv baatnoB iitinbat'iith to\ X»6ii&o9 fistbi tX?o»x« &£i& od 

flo j^^(;£X« 9J^ ii»dv ^«ii;r b9l\li»9i UAtnoiom mAi t9^ ;X'iXitfl«so(i«i 

«XXXt« &cet T e0fii^o$o loia btb tt ^t&o d^«»nts •d;r ao ••aCaiid •d^ 

•4 c;J xmy- -^tti a^^orfs sldJf ;?«id? bam ;qol« **»Xa«oo vh o^ tVAO tX 

fesXift*^ n^is^oioB »d* *cn t© isff;f9j*# otf &» ai a^wC :fni«>q adT 

IMiA 4a«i;f «>«/ia «i^.' itfowe^us »dt v»« fioa M«9d 9A ittt Jbavoda 

calooX s tc asocfMf ^tiJ ,»'!©t3»'««d* ,bii»:ffioe> tlflfi^natab 

9itU vi»8 ftAe ditsad ti^mnLC'iem %m -isM aiJLmba t'tUelMt^ .t»adslXqaH»98« 

to »aoQ^e<^ »djr dttlXqeoooJS i&a bib taa^ t&iSf aC)a«taoe iodi ^%Iidom»tu» 

•nultm'^ •9a«tiooj) ad:^ ^n«v 9^aX eojT t.^v ti aoiiia ,»9«*9iX3aa aid 

fmrnli TtyL^ ,-wml to t^iiMm a ba aMN^iiXaaa ai tuttMa^I lo^oaei « qaad OJT 

A ai ♦nerit .COX •qc , 'Ts ^ftjh^iUBft^ •» .<?p i»y 4 fjra.c^ 

aiiw »<t9ii# lAdt 7»At «d:r oj^ aenret anoa ai iti^di B^uHmc; bn» neiifaasyra 

9ftit i&iii ftfie 6aibf!i?oa a£^>r t^o #»«^;r9 ad^ no ^no^ ftd:f ;^j!.d# aenabiva aoea 

,£«6iijiioa ;i^Qfa ftd^r t«ad ifos bib odir t«ta«A;riv 'xad^e to xaomltB»f a«v 


and tlunt eueh negative teatlnony did not tend to prove the Allegation 
of negligence in that peg&rd. However, in the first place, the only 
aiffirmative testimony thi:;t the gong w&s sounded was th^t of the 
motorman, «nd secondly, the driver of the automobile testified th&t 
there vaa no gong or bell sounded at any tiae. It was a question for 
the Jury to determine whether or not a gong or bell was sounded as 
the aotorman started to sake the turn into 14th Street, 

When we come to oonsider the fs^ote, the auestion here is as 
to whether due osre was exercised by Dlslntiff In theoperation of the 
autonobile in which the plaintiff vas seAttd at the tins of the 

The further fact that was considered, ao doubt, by the Jury 
was the fact that when the street car collided with the automobile 
there was such force that some of the passengers were knocked off 
their seAts and that the conductor was almost Itnocked off the rear 
platform. The argtwent, however, of the defendants is that the evidence 
tends to show that the driver of the automobile v&s guilty of negligence, 
but the facts that are urged are for a Jury to pass? upon. The question 
here is was there sufficient evidence to Justify the court In sub- 
mitting the iseues to a Jury, The general rule applicable is that 
where, from all of the evidence in favor of the plaintiff together 
with all legitimate inferences therefrom, the Jury may reasonably 
find for the plaintiff, it is error to enter a Judgment for the 
defendants notwithstanding the verdict of the Jury. The plaintiff 
under the law must exercise due csre for his own safety, but, under 
the oases cited, it is not negligence aer se to attempt to cross a 
street car track at @ street Intersection in front of an approaching 
street oar. Whether attempting to opobb a street car tx>aok at a 
street intersection ahead of an approaching street ear constitutes 
negligence is a ouestion of fsot for the Jury, ( Fisher v. Chicag o 
City Rv. Co .y 114 111, App.217; Chicago Union Trac. Co. v, J>-cobson . 
217 111, 404; Chicago City Hy. Co . v, ^^ndusky. 198 111. 400; Loftus 

noW/'-afiiXjt. fi6J $v<nq o^ ba^J JO0 hi'- ■■.,>•■;■,.;■ .'■ vUa^fna i&e«fl iadi ds^M 

^iiiis x^'&tiiys'Sii •Xic(o«o?6ft •dt to ttivivl) «ri? ,'!(XJ&aomi« bum ^ttamotpm 

«« £>9J&ave« t^^* IX»«! iQ anen j» tea ie> i9ti$iiitiK 9ixi«t9#«ft of ^iirt •<<' 

«994^^a jBill'X otai aitft •/l;r •;;(«« ol 6«#*fiii}a itxcndtoa vil^ 

•iid&«io7u« 9di liflv i(»£iXX&9 •3«e }««t^s •jgU iimIw #441 tMl tria »«m 

tto Jb«3£»o£i^ o^tv t^98S»a#««| 9At lo Mma 9«fil tvi^t A9U9 ajtv »smU 

1A91 »xU t)o l)»i(;»4iijii •rso«X4 luetw tc;ff>«5aft« tU iMit bam ttiltoa iltuSiT 

-dva al iitioo 9A^ fll^Tstft «tf^ 9^t9blyr9 i^tsl^lttttn s»m«ii:r »«« ai 9X9^ 

tjidi &1 9lr:»8t£q',^M. 9J.U1 Imamn^ 9dS ^Vftti ji **^ «t»eU 9tLi ^titlm 

lOiUsao? ItXJraMiq 9ti'- .^•eafeiT® «^ to XXa mmt «»t«ilir 

tX^^aHQa^a't t^fi" rx^t -'i'-^ t«otA»TtiSM-i* a®0«fi9liii a#4«Xli;i»X i^Xa sitXyi 

9&S! 10X imm^l « ^«tjra<» ®^ iott UalAiq »d* nt©! Ault 

lliJaiAXq adt .^-sAiJ. «m4* to *aXfn«v »dJ j|j«iirti4«*«iiJlw;roii aJaaliaalaA 

^L&hnm ,tjjc« .^JaluMi fiwr. alii tol »"r.e» *«l) ««X»rtaac« <»«« w&X ailt nwAav 

A 99<n9 otf *cf«o^3r^ ©^ JU^ «xaff a«E»»sXi^«»a *«« ai «X ,fe»*io a»a«io a/U 

Sitldoj^a^q^ Ka lo ;r9<nl ai SKVl^jwama^riii ^aaTta a jTa 3(ft«9ir /caa J^acntf* 

a 4^a :ilo&«:^ %£0 f^et^a a ^ao^-a at guiarei^l^A laiUaiGNl •t«a faa«t#a 

aa;$tf;rx^a«09 i«o :r««*i#i? gfiltl9^r>^Qf:[» n^ to £i.«aiifi iiol}9«a'iatni sTea^la 

• ' ^Stll&H) .^•'^ut ft^J' *»ot :^»«t t» jHoi^RS-Jwr- « ai eoii»jilX3«<i 

▼• ghloatfo Rya. Co .. 293 111. 47S, 

The judgment order entered on July 11, 1940, by Judge wHiiaa 
J. winbueoue, which ie the subjeet of thie oontroveray, states that 
this oatti« eaae on to be heard upon the motion of the olaintiff for 
an addltor, and for & new trial, and the aotlon of the defendants for 
a Judgment notwlthBtandlng the yerdlot, which aotlone were theretofore 
filed in the oauee, ©nd that the eourt having heard the argunent 
of counsel for and against said motions, it la hereby ordered; (1) 
that the plaintiff's sotion for an add! tor be, and the etaae is hereby 
overruled and denied; (2) that the aleiatlff's motion for a new 
trial be, and the eame is hereby overruled and denied; (30 that the 
defendants* motion for a judgaient Tiotwithetanding the verdiet, be, 
and the same is hereby allowed, and that a judgment finding the 
defendants not guilty, notwithstanding the verdict, be, and the 
same is hereby rendered and entered; and (4) that the Judgment hereto- 
fore entered on the verdict, in the sum of ?5,000.00 in favor of the 
plaintiff be, and the aase i« hereby vacated. It is to be noted 
frois this Judgtaent order that the only subject matter that is really 
before this oourt for discussion is th©t ©art of the order allowing 
the defendants* notion for Jadgaent notwithstanding the verdict, and 
that in substance will be the subject of our discussion. The statute 
(l»ar. 259,22, Chap, 110, 111* Hev, Stat,, 1939) provides as follows 
concerning the entry of Judgment notwithstanding the verdict; "The 
power of the Court to entsr Judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be 
exercised in all cases where, under the evidence in the c«ite, it would 
have been the duty of the Court to direct a verdict without subaitting 
the case to the Jury," 

Proa the facte as we have found and considered thera, we 
r@ach the conclusion that the court erred in entering this Judgment 
order notwithstandinf the verdict for the reason th«t there was 
evidence in the record froa which, standing alone, ths Jury night, 
without acting unreasonsbly in the eyes of the law, find the material 
averments of the ooaolaint to be sustained, A motion for a directed 

.«f» .x^i Rt» ,.gf> ,fi^ 9mwM •▼ 

■aiiliw •sibifL %ii 4OMX ,XX %X«fi ffe ^mmttn fine $a»m$biil itt 

tot m;rfli«Xo '»Ht )g ooitoir «jdt ne^ fy^a^A •ii <t:t mn •««• ••»«« vUlt 
*t«»l t#ffalM»«l»& •!&«( to <i«lt««i tlSt Jte« «XsJhrd w«tt a to) fiiiiB ,f9ttb6« Oi 

;£>(»<x«g)«x«{» ttf»*X6il »Jt #1 ,fti:c«lfe«f &li»« rtnlaiJi f>fis not £»tiui(»o to 

<i4ib'iSii^ ftl' oemt oii^ 611A ,«4 '%^it&'hiia> A» ntot ifOliTott »*tti^jiXaX<? oH^ ^«ill 

won H -^ot mitm\ 8*-ni#»lsX(? •/E;r tsiii (8) ;jboiii»l> Mm ltollMf««v» 

»xl;t Jji(Xi^ <&S) ;&«ilii»ib &ja^ ^^Xeftieve ICefotojl oi mum •«(} 6«« i«tf Xftl*it 

■trif j|«lX&a^t tll««3£«t « ?«»fl^ htin «&*voXXa ttf*<S«^ ftX •««« Mit itt 

o^ {SUB ,»<f tiTolJHov 0119^ |plt»aist8Jiriv;roo ,x9Xlir|f toil atflio6«otoft 

■^•ii^^A lii9ffi^!u^t frfi^ :rinfi«r (1^) ham ;&o>t»t«ft bno ionoM^f x4mMi •! otiot 

i»if* ti& lorst «i 00, 000, at to «»• »rf# 111 ,JoiM»v otf* ffo htnmtm v^tfl 

hint 90. ^09 si ifl .itotooov ic<l«noif •! «»« ort^ hitm, ,o«f tti^Hliiii 

XJtii»^'T «X :SA^i i9ttm $fi9fl4mi \Xao of& ^o49 «!oi>*io HiOBstet tJUIt aMt 

snlw©H« <s*j&»f« 94i^ to tnmq !fndt »l fiol?afrtfO<iii> fot ^nooo aKIJ otototf 

Atttii ftoiJHor tii;r '^iMtii!snMJ»$%m fmm^bafi itot AeD^on *«tfloftii«toi^ oM« 

o;rcrt^« 0^7 ^iw^/^o^dsiiD 'ttro "lo fool^Ti^ *fli« o«r Iflw daaotalftni a1 »«d# 

isvolXot «« 8»&ivo«SQ (tl!«t ,»t*te ,^i^ .tXI «OXX ,«fftJfD ,SNr.«eS .utoO 

otff * jtoijbrfov oii^ $al&ii«r««(#Jt%'l^oci ^ista»£iiri )o x*tJa^ o^ jM^^tAtoonoo 

Otf YiUP fOt^OT «i£» ;i«i»»£;rodJEri^?>fi riioa!»l>iS7t i«>^ft« <>* #«iiioO oilf to «»«H[ 

ftlwotr tl ^oo^p o^iif ni oeun^iiro wA^ fbem ««n»4v ioooO 1X« mi lM»ftXiWMM 

.il.t*i»«rofft 9oOii»iv »sl£>n»v a ip^U tat tnti^O ojW t© l#»ft oUt «oo<( ovoH 

"•fwC Mft of oaoo 04t 

9V ^ffftiti j^s^ofiiaamo l^fto MoMrt oowt ov «« a^ocst «^t mai^ 

stfv^bsf^ %tm sflJ^»j«« fli ^^»w* t*v»o« oilt 9«iC» rcoiotfioa** •Hf ilooo^ 

Oiiir ••««/U Mitf floftfir^n oit^ not f oliHor otf^ ^M««tf«lltl«#o«i «ioMo 

«tii^«r Y'vi't ''^c^'^ <«AoX« s^l&iui^fi «iif9iilw «e<tt Mooo«r %A* nt ooflofiivo 

XjbJH9»jWB oiW fcurt ♦w«X oii* to «♦%» 0119 «i tXdJiaoBAMJiB .f«WdJi fnotfr/w 

6«*&«ilft A lot /!cijrj» A .Aoaiit#BOc od o* JfllaXcrtBoo «rfJ te mimsnmrM 


▼erdlet under ©uoh olroxi^stanoee in properly denied. The court In 
peselng upon the defendants* «fltlon for Judgaent notvlthetandlng 
the Tordlct is lliilled to fsots appearing In evidence and oust oonslder 
them In the light aost favorsble to the plaintiff. In conslciering 
this question the a-pellate court Gsnnot velgh the evldenee and vlll 
only determine whether the evidence tends to sustain the pleadings, and 
It is without Jurlstlotlon upon defendants* notion to weigh the evi- 
dence and to determine whether the verdict of the jury is against 

I V&9 fflanifeet velght of the evidence. We have oonsldered the f&ets snd 


I wt ftre of the opinion that the evidence ?*&rrs.nted the Jury in finding 


\ the defendants guilty of the acts charged in the eonpl&int. This 


I •onelusion, of course, is fortified by the fact that plaintiff's 

\ action for nev trial wat denied, there having been entered on the 

verdict of the jury a Judgment in favor of the plaintiff. 

Ho notion other than for Judgment notwithstanding the 
verdict was made by defendants. They made no motion for a new trial, 
and the icvttc here, therefore, depends uoon th«ir motion for Judgment 
notwitlistanding the verdict of the Jury. Under the facts and condition* 
as they appear in this record, we are of the opinion thst the court 
was in error in allowing defendants* motion, and such Judgment order 
notwithstanding the verdict will be reversed, 

Steder the o ire less tanecs, the orddr of the court will be 
that the Judgment order of July 11, 1940, vac&ting the Judgment on the 
verdict In favor of plaintiff and entering Judgaent notwithststhding 
the verdict in favor of defendant, will be reversed. So, >!e only 
have before us here now as matter for oonslderation the verdict of 
the Jury for the t^iaintiff for the sum of -S, 000 ,00, For the reasons 
stated in the opinion, a Judgment In favor of plaintiff will be 
entered here for this amount together with interest at the rate of 5;^ 
per annum from the eate of t)n verdict. May 2S, 1940, (Oh^. 74, sec. 



Itiyf i^a «e««l>i'r& s!i$? ^i%i«>v Soitwm 1t%Mis» 9tmJU.*q'm 9n$ cioif««ir9 «l4fit 

•stt mo l»«t«^a<» a«»tf unlTiSfi vfM ^im»^ s«w i«.lv# v«« not A«>i;rei! 
wiir %^thsisii^%iiS,b^o(t »ni»m^bui not aAfi# tfui^* «H>i^G« •« 

tin© »v ,»a ,l»©r?!^v«Ti ♦<} IXlw ,J«a6iMit«fi t« tevat xil loiijnsv miii 

•AMAe^ til^ te'^^ .9O«DQ0,d^ te «r« n^ «ret tMttUmXq Hkt ^tet XiifC •'^ 

9^ ittv stwaijslf; t« ^©v«t ai tmm^H * *«oliU<i« •*» al b9t»$» 

M td *»!-( Btit ^« {r««f»»i«l K#JN ^«itt«ie;r ttrmnmB •leiS ft rteii 6«f«f«« 


3, 111. Rev, Stat,, 1939; Reltz v^ Yallov Cab Co ., 248 111. App. 287), 

rOR Ifi, 000,00, TOGETHS'R WITH lUT^.Hhf^T AT 

6$ ptn mvmn raoM mt i or vgRMCf, 

D£liIS £• SULLIVAIi, and BUMi;, JJ, GOKCTflU 


rrr %♦.?? .,oO cr^n yejr«.t ,y ittJtff^- ;^W 4.^e;fo .▼©« ,IXX ,« 

».*?{.;• . .uvijjraa ,s etww 






Thi» is an ftotlon by tli« plaintiff tc rraooTftr eowaiseiona 
at SJR agent, on industrial loans saAo t>y f!«f«ndstnt8, alleged to b« 
:^diu« under oontraets entered into 1»«twe«R plaintiff and defendants. 
Upon tlie trial of the case and the issues, judgment j^ae entered for 
tiM plaintiff in the son of l495,00, frosi which judgment defendants 
appeal. No point is raised on the pleadings • 

Under plaintiff's theory th®t applies, it is suggested that 
plaintiff referred to the defendants two indUBtrisl loans, on® Immm 
as the O'Shea loan and the other as the Vaughan -i Bushnsll Manufactur- 
ing Coapany loan. In the eaiie of the Vaughan & Bushnell Ms^nufaeturing 
Company loan, it is the r>laintlff*8 position that an a^reewent waa 
entered into vrith the defendants whereunder the defendants were 
ohligated to pay to plaintiff a one per cent eoasission on a first 
aortgEge loan eonsurmated on eertain vaeant iMproved industrial 
proj^erty at the soutlwest eonser of Moyne and Osrroll Avenues in 
Chieage, Illinois; ths^t auoh lean i^ae ooneuamated hy the defendants 
in the sua of 27,000 and that there Is therefore due and ovlng 
plaintiff on said lean the sua of 1270,00; and in the ease of the 
O*0hea loan it is the plaintiff's position that an agreement was 
entered into vith defendants 'thereunder defendants agreed to pay to 
plaintiff a two per oent oom^siBsion on a >16,000 lean, or the sua of 
1300, when said loan v&g c^nsuoaated; that the loan was oonsuBraated; 
that the defenasnts paid 75.00 on aoeount of said ooaaiseion of 
$300.00 leaving a balance of ^*225,00 due and owing froa defendants 
to the plaintiff. 

■9J1V ham 

L X -^"^ 


lis ^»s n»tsa'»'i9h f^ »!»«» %n»^t itttti^ubat 00 ,ta»9A m •• 

-^«/^»jistx«n '»&S i& fi«if3lir«V •!{# ft« ic£ir« tilt hHH a»oI a*M*0 •if} a« 

aei« 7r idfU noilltoq 9*'rttfal»£<: •Ai 9t ii «aaal ia«iia»9 

tntil. « fie fioZaftia»;OD i>««9 *fti «ii<5 a 1ti;tnJ;AXg o^ xmtt «►* ft«fifttilcfe j 

ei ftBum»'^?\ XX«n*».»0 fens anxeK 1© nwa^oo j-nevjEUri/oc »rii :r« t^<i«4*vq 

»7aafii9»t»& @)49 t^ fe«#.eMniraae{> a.av ««oX itoars isitS ;«ioaXXII ,<h$.30ldt 

^ive M« aafe »^9lef«»iit ai ^^ft^i ^«ilt btm 000 ,T?? to avv »ilt fli 

•d# t«> 9«jeo «ii^ ni fma {00 .0^3!^' ta aara •A9 aaoX fti«i> a« lltitaiaXq 

aav ^n^ ft^; itiul^ aal^ifjo^ 9*\^JtfatmXq •At tl ti mi^l «attf *0 

09 ^«; c>;r <3ifl«2:n«tail> t»£>nBa-taifv staa&Aalab ftfiw atal ftanataa 

to naa aitj 10 «i?«oX 000,5X1^ a ae aeiaalaaioo #a«a ivq ««# a tli7ntiaX« 

;ft«,t«i6t»u«jifiit aaw oftoX »Ji^ 9^^ ;i^«»9«ainiafin& s«v aaoX fiiaa aa^ ,008t 

to aol^fitenoo &i« le tavooaa aa OO.iTtr Mac; a^a«£>«ata>» airtt ta4t 

arnAbnetftb n«*rt ^nivo ftaa «»£> OO.das; lo aaaaXatf a saXTsaX OO.OO&i 

•tti^oiaXci axU 0« 

Th« ansver of a^fenisnts to plfilntlff'a th«orj Ib thet: 
First; In tb« oace of the 0*Sh«« lostn, thfit e bona fldf dltpvit* 
•xlffted betwoen the defendantc and the r»l&lntiff «s to the aaouat of 
eommlesion to be paid to plaintiff by the defendant eorporatlonj that 
the defendant eorporttlon sent to plaintiff a oheok for *76.00 "in full* 
of the eommiesldn due; that the plaintiff aeeepted the oheek and in 
BO doing aeoepted it aubjeot to the eondltion of full paysent, a 
oondltlon vhloh was not •Rived by the defendants, and therefore the 
plaintiff is barred fron recovering any further swm alleged to be due; 
Second, That in the ease of the Vaaghan & Buahnell Manufacturing 
Coapany loan, the defendants did not agree to pay to plaintiff any 
ooaalasion on the loan made by the defendant eorpor: tion; Third, 
That all of the dealiaga in oonneotlon with the two loan* were betwee* 
the plaintiff and the defendant oorporation and there is nothing in 
the record to Justify the entry of a finding and Judgaient ag&.inst 
Wilbur I. Hoitett, indlTidually. 

The plaintiff contends with respect to the O'uhea loan 
that it is well settled that where a Glai« or demand is liouid&ted, 
and not In dispute, and is presently due or overdue, the paywent by 
the debtor, and aooeptsnce by the creditor, at the slaoe i*here nayment 
of the debt is proper to be «a<1e, of a part only of the debt, or any 
saount of aoney lees than the i^ole aaount vhlch is due, affords no 
consideration for an agreewent by the creditor to aiecharge the unpaid 
residue or balance of the debt. The defendants concede the testinony 
with respect to the faeti thst on April 14, 1939, plaintiff referred 
the so-called o»Shea aiortgage loan of 116,000 to defendants and 
furnished certain data in connection therenrith, and thst the defendants 
were paid a groe? comiission of 7^, or n,050.00. The record failed, 
however, to dlscloae a dispute as to amounts of the eoamission to be 
paid to the plaintiff, except that the affidavit of defense and the 
testimony of '*'ilbur E, Hovettj denies the agreeuent to pay the 
plaintiff a ooBuaisAlon of 2%, The testlaony of Roland Lueder that 
Mr, Howett agreed to pay plaintiff a 2^ cowsission is corroborated 

>,^nftl&£i«l»& to ^««rafi« Mtf 
3-J^.i£ii; '^^i'i ,;^ -^ol fe«»rtt*C* fiirtt to •««« CkidUr Al ;#t"ii'! 

& «^a»«st«<q IXtfl: to a&««i vr ^««{,fi(ii6 #i &e^^»«t« allied o« 

jpiiXii;7e4tirfi«M XX«n<teDd i^ a«43^£T f49 to ft&«e «4;r ai luifT «|>iiOJiM»{i 

«^X£tf \&e^tii>^^tfiiin Sa.i^bant9k e4^ to^ 9&Ati mt^l •Af no e^l^tXirsttD 

Rt ^AsoX ow;r »fl7 H^Xv £iei^»*£U}oe al •;soiX4M»l> Miy 111 XI* imAt 

iti ^iiiU'Ma 9X rteti^ tn^ a^ii&-iC(ri99 taabsmn^i^ 9si$ diu tlitai«X() •di 

jr»fiUjrf^« ;a«a^dtf^ ^n^ ^nlball m lo ipila* ft^i^ i(l!X;rt»t of trtop9t 90$ 

siual j»»ilgVo ftiij^ 99 ii^qst»i Aiiv 9b&iifmf9 JttiRlAlq «iiT 
^b^i s^Xiipil »X j&fljjmS 19 mial9 » n«if»r f^iif &«X^f»« XXov tX #i 7«i(;r 

./■■wts lex it©Xilw Smt'Gm& ®J<»il^ ^''>« t© ^mrofti 

hi I ie>|rxAlte«li^ o^ to;fX.5^t9 ni^'i -v .''-^^^^^T^et^A ha tot itejl4«it*i£>XtAOfli 

/•■^n^TfriiMi. 'itl^eiiUsf ,e&ei ,>X Xl«i#'v no ^<&^? t*©9t »Af o* #»»««<« jl^iw 
V nea«<! aAt ,00«OSc;),i ^ doX<««ls(P9S »9<ms * AJLaq •<t«w 

•A} i»r tviai&i)i« 1^ 9.fim tt9^»Ti9 ^'i'xunMX% $tti4 o$ biMn 

^n» \»% 9i satim^m^A •49 9ntt»b ^St^ te xfnomtt^^i 

tacit nctetU JbAAXoH te x<>9><'^'b*^ *<^ •^■^ "^^^ nol^utimnti b '\tUa.letlq 



l»y th« plaintiff, Mr. K^aund ¥, o*Sh«A, and Jos«ph w. Bobk*. An 
•xaatlnntion of the oorreapond»rao« bdtvvon th« partiea &099 indlo«t« 
thst th«r« vi€ a disputs »8 to the ee^nlaflioa. lamsdiately b«for« 
Inatitution of th* instant suit the d^fandante wrote the plaintiff 
on Fabr«apy ®S, 1940, offering an ®xo«a« a« to why the full ooaniaeion 
had not been paid. To this letter there was attaehed a cheek for 
|7»,00. to thle •omitnieation the plaintiff replied on March 8, 1940, 
demanding the balanoe of oomml anions &i»ounting to v2S5.00 as well ae 
lOTO.oO on the other loan whioh la also the aubjeet of this litlg&tlon, 
from the atate«ent of faeta it appeara that the pl&intiff and 
defendant eorporatlon, both Ghioego eoneeme, were at the tine of the 
ooourrenoe of the aattera inrolTed in thla ault engaged in siallar liaea 
of busineasE - that of mortgage bankers^ the defendant ©orpor&tion 
v&e en^&ged in aaXing firtt ttortgage Iosbs tc induatrial ooffipaniea, 
Hie plaintiff was engaged in the real estate and mortgage bualneaa. It 
•ppeatre that the parties to thia emit had teaown »«®h other for Bome 
time and had had buainesf^ dealinga with e&ch other for approximately 
fifteen or twenty yeere* The sttbjeot matter of thia suit haa to do 
with two separate and distinet trathaaotlona, the first being referred 
to aa the *0»Shea loan** and the ®e«ohd as the ''^aughan 4 Bushnell Loan", 

fhe oontentioo of the defendant! ie that where a oheek is 
offered la fall s-etisfaotion of « «ll®ptited demand, &n& the creditor 
aooepto It, sttoh aoeeptsno© oongtitate© satisfaetion, although the 
ereditor proteets at the time that th» amount received is not all that 
It due or that he doee not aeoept it in full satiaf&otion. It appears 
that on or sbout i^prll 14, 1939, plaintiff r«f@rr«d to the defend nt 
corporation for eonaideration a flret mortg&ge loan In the sun of 
116,000 OB property of the O'Shes Knitting Mille at 2701 M. Pulaakl 
Hoad, Chieet^o, The property waa inepeoted by defendant corporation 
on April 17, 1939, to aseertain whether a first mortg&g;© loan could 
be made on the property, and after a substantial amount of work, aa 
outlined in a letter of the defendant oori:)orstion to plaintiff dated 


,9*ei ,« ^oit»t^ no fe»il'^»-r filial*!?? wW a«it««lann)«« •liif oT .OO.ftTl 

-. iX»v «ft oo«SSS$ of ^aUtiu^mm mmimimmiM to aMiBXAd Mtr t^Utmmam^ 

fill '^^Iltitsi ai A9»»jiim itu9 mJULS ni bmrX^Tnl i^^stam ttt )» •mm'm9— 

.«sXrusK«« i«lif«»MX oa «a«el »9«||«^mi #»9X1 aaiJtott si i^ aaf •«« 

«!S!C<@ loH: i9SiSt: bAA tltti ai49 At »»UnA% «Af tatft aiMt^Q* 

ti«t;»»XK«^c;qis tol T»h;^ ;^JXw «lliil«*t «t«lil«Mr A^ AMI MM •■if 

f9m ««lMl tviXt 9131? ghauts eniatkfs^i i9SitfXb hm» tjn»^M mi$ Mtw 
ai iloftflo a ,. : itiS 9l mlftfSamt ailT 

a-ittqc;.. ■ :?l«lf-- .-tno.,* ?')« ^sof- sff tsif^ 10 Bub ai 

Jneifefic- ,..•... -.,-. ... -■.-.-. ; i...^^.<, , . , . i--^*- ■'• - «<5 tntU 

ii8^a.„ . ;._ - ' dJ tc x^ia<|0^'? «♦ 000»8rt 

.^Xvo* flsif^ <i .j<>' .:','-i.f" ^- <i 'ii-: •■' ,] ^.tt':'.')* !■ ■••• ■ .'^."r^X ,fX Xt*r<?A no 
aa tJ»o ...v,^-., *..,v ...... ■■.-..*;■.. ..,.„ ...... ,;..;,..,. '.^^ «rf» IK' aJbjaa a^t 


Ftbruary 2Q, 1940, th» 0*ah«a loan of il5,00C wtiB a«d« by th« 
defendant ctorpori^tlon In thv aieint)i of «r«iitti[i27, ld40* ?h«r« le ovldonov 
tikftt tli« dafendsjit oorporation was psld on the loan so skadt a gross 
eosalselon of 7% or 'Jl, 050,00. Def«n€&nts aut^lt thj&t It Is ols&rl/ 
establlahod by the 9Vldones th^^^t a dlspiato 93rlst44 btttw««n ths plain- 
tiff and the defendant eorpor' tlon vlth rsspoet to the aaoont of the 
commission to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant eorporation 
on this loan. The defendants suggest thet the ultimate faot that 
suoh a diepttte or controversy existed is all that is neoess^-sry under 
the law to dispose of the astter when considered irith the further 
adsiitted fast of payment of 175. (K) »ade by the defendant oorporation 
to the plaintiff, >ri3,ioh indioated that there was a question as to the 
anount of the ooamission due to plaintiff. There is eviaenee in this 
reeopd that, regerding the elaiaed eos^ission of 2%, i^mt Mr. Bobica 
oaiie to the office of Mr. Howett and told his th&t he expeoted no 
reaiiameratldB froa the loan ~ as eu^eetad by the plaintiff •> beoauise 
he was a personal friend of Mt, 0*lftea, and this is in aeeord with 
Hr, Bobka'e oroes examinstion. Frtm the t«sti»ony of Mr. Howett, it 
appe&rs th^t when the defendant eorporction decided th£t it would 
oonsidtr the O'Shee loan the oorporstion wrote « letter dated April 18, 
1930, to the plaintiff oonpany msking olaintiff to advise by letter 
what eoanisfiion It ei!i»eeted to reeeive froa th^ loan; that the 
plaintiff did not reply by letter ^t th«t a few iays after ^ril 18, 
1939^ Mr, Lueder of tho plaintiff eoa;->any phoned Mr, Howett and 
said he vanted a one-half of one per eent oommissidn on whatever loan 
was aade. The defendant oorpors;tion did not know at that tiae what 
lo&n would be made, an^^ during th&t oonvere^tion with ?*r, Lueder, Mr, 
lowett aade a notation on the O'Shea office file, as follows: "One-half 
per cent to Lue&er, - 4/lt/»39*, 

^tbseciuently, on February 2,$, 1940, the defendant oorporation 
nailed a letter to i^r, ?.u«der which read in part ss follows; 

»tii t<^ »&»» «#v 000, ^tt l«s H«dX .««£l8*0 M]r «04$1 ,»S \:t«mtft1 

t^TAtlo «1 *i Jell* »l*ciBa »J9«fefi»1;« V t© IIOi99l«{»09 

"ffii^^lr, ndS tt«9vt^4 hMslri$ »4ifmil « ir-iH »or»I^1t* »dt ^cf &«iS0lX4«lt« 

aoitf«^0!3no9 tnnhaalwb *rf? v- .If* ?©«*! tmSStmbM 

4«J Il%<9i tnttxi 9^mh w»t » tf*llil $mf %^S^£ %a %Xqtn t«fl bU> tXUiUMlQ 

taiiw »«XJ tAiW *« w««ij* f«tt iiil> aoil'siioqrr«» tili|&n»l*jb 9iit .•6«« ftav 
tXauf-aaft" J«vaXX©l «« .eXn ••ll^o e«il»*0 eAj^ no ifol^»;r4»a » %h9B tt^mlA 

!*fcrif;l r'« :rifii; 111 fe*»^ liPk^ nebeifJ ,«iJft ©^ -xt^l^X a fi»XXMi 


•Vt attneb hereto, our oheok rjayable to the order of si, a, 
Kmnrlne 4 to., in the eua of 75.00, eoverlng the ooimiat^lon in 
full a» ' i;f4t& on the a15,000,00 first mortgage loan, tdiloh we 
negotlf t^4 for ^daund F, O'Shea, on the :>roperty located at 2701-09 
N. Pvl^jwl '^«d* Ohieage, Illlnoie.*' 

"^Ut IsSWr v&s received by the plaintiff and Mr. Lueder had the 

9hmtk aertlfled and deposited It. Plelntlff replied to defendant* e 

letter by letter 4ated Haroh 8, 1940, whleh wae ten daye later, 

frta.oh read In part; 

••'ife aoknovledge reeelpt of your eheek for |7S,00 in part 
peymtnt of eo«3ilB!;lon dae us amounting to SOO.OO on the O'Shea 
lean, «nd deaand forthwith the baletnoe of ISSS.OC." 

On Mareh 14, 1940, defendant eorporntlon replied to plaintiff* a letter 

of Mar«h 6, 1940, dAnying thst it owed anything further to plaintiff 

on the 0*!Hm« loan and referred plaintiff to defendant* a/of February 

26, 1940. 

It would sppmrnr, therefore, froa the facte in this reoord 
that the aaount due ff^a the defendant corporation to the plaintiff 
was ttnllquidated and a bona fide diapute exlated between the partiee 
la regard thereto; that payment was aade by the defend^mt corporation 
to plaintiff by a check of ^73.00, aeeonnt^anled by a letter to the 
plaintiff reciting that the check repre scented payment "in full as 
agreed*; thet aeoeptsnee of the check by plaintiff wae acknowledged 
at "part paynent with a demand for an alleged balance of ISSS.OO; 
and that the defendants did not valve the condition of full payaent on 
which the check for I7§«00 was tendered to the plaintiff. 

The attention of this court la called to the caae of 
The Canton Union Coal So . v, Parlin & Orendorff Cob . 21S 111, 244, 
where it appeara that the pleintlff agreed to sell coal to defendant 
at certain stipulated prices, a controversy arose as to whether the 
plaintiff ooaplied with the agreanent i^nd at its explr&tlon the 
defendant s>ent to the plaintiff a statenent of account and aeaoranda 
showing a balance due to plaintiff of 470,67. a check for that 
aaount was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff with a letter which 
read in part, as follows; "iJnclosed pleaee find our check on the 
First N^^tional Bank of Canton No. 19348, !470.e7 in full of account. 


K'^:it ■ ;. . ■ -^ ,:i ii< 

s*.t «.«.»«© "tf»i- c? 6-. 

1 Sj'i ^ *" '■ ^'■'z'' ■ 

•♦#?4»* ^^ 

ift(»<}«fe &A4 &«i'U.t*f$.*' "*»«;< 

•» t 

r hist. It 


-i ■V',- !3-rul :i,nintfm; &■■■ ■' ■ 

'- 'tnj rfs:©y?iKl f)»;r«4Tt9 t*»q«X£- B&t'X «fl©4 « 6fiA *«i 


He ^^as:<^i(e^ 

•;i;01\a ^51€' 


Sitit tot Jos)£le A ,Ti,0"r^ 



• • •, Pl«*8« ftoknoirlvage rwipt and oblige, • The plaintiff 

reeelTed and d«po»it«d th« eh^tek whleh wee credited on itf aoeount 

AS ehovn by plelntiff^s books and then presented ft ctet»fflent to the 

defendftot elaimlng & balanee due vhioh ves denied by the defendant. 

Sttlt vas brought for the bi^lanee elaiaed to be owing after the 

eredlt vae given, the Jury wae Instrueted to find for the defendant 

and jadgaent vse entered aeoordlngly* Ihls Judgment »^as oonflraed 

by the Appellate and Sypreae Courte, The Supreme Court aaldj 

"In such a ease, payment of & part actually due or of a 
lets sum than was claimed by plaintiff, if ^Iven and received in 
satlef action of the deaand, vould amount to soeord and eatisf action. 

* * * t(i eonetltute an accord and eatlef action it is necessary th&t 
the money or check, or whatever is offered, should be offered in 
full fiatisfsotion of the demand, and should b# offered in such a 
manner or aooomoanied by such acts or declarations as amount to a 
condition that if thi party to whom it is offered takes It he does 
so in satisfaction of his demand. It the offer is made in such a 
m^jiner, and it is accepted, the aficeptsnoe will satisfy the (!eaand, 
although the creditor protests at the time th&t the amount reoelred 
is not ell th«t is due or th^t he does not accept it in full satis- 
faction of his olaia. The creditor has no altemetive except to 
accept ^at is offered with the condition upon which it is offered, 
or to refuse It; and if he accepts the acceptance inoludes the 
eondlticn, no twl the tending any protest he may asake to the contrary,* 

Continuing the court 'aid: 

''The cheek was the means of obtaining payment of the 
balance shown by the statement, and it ^as clearly offered as 
payment in full of the balance due. If the plaintiff, upon rsoeipt 
of the oheek, had retained it and hafi not done or sid anything further, 
there would be no dlsoute of the orooosltlon that it ws« accepted 
In full payment and s^.tlafsotlon of th« demand, ia&intiff oould 
not have understocd thst It ^?.s suthorised by the letter to accept 
the oheek f-s a part oayment and oredlt It on the account, leaving 
a balance due. If taken at all it was to be taken as it vss offered, 
as a payment in full; and this would be true although the book- 
keeper went to the defendant's officer and protested that the check 
H^B not for the whole amount due, ♦ » * If the plaintiff was not 
willing to accept the check a» sent. In full of the account and 
acknowledge the receiot of it as reauested, it oug^ht to have returned 
It, The rule that r«<iuired It to do so is neither harsh nor unjust, 
but it secured to the defendant the right to have its oheek received 
8 8 offered. If received at all, unless there was a subseouent waiver 
of that condition," 

Referring further to the rule as to what constitutes an accord and 

satisfaction, the court said; 

"The ouestion whether the amount accepted was less than 
the plaintiff was entitled to receive or would have recovered in 
ease of suit Is iaaatsrlal and does not in any way affect the rule." 


i: leered •if;r ^ 

« to Id ftifb %llAist&& StM<i n to ^a«arfi9<^ ,(»«*^ 

3 ttlM |(^©»©« O? ^: 

i*n : 

^ fonts'. 

afc ttl :r«i» IX "^ 
,8»i«f«» siii tc 

;jrdo '^ft enjufets nft^ saw JEmhsIo •IBP* 

?,--r, f.,,,-< f,^.. ,t,t fe«fii«^»i ^nA .i9*jle #ili''Tf 
• • :■ *>iv^l& on m lt£m- 


Th« rulei «tt forth in th« C anton Coal Cottt?&ny o»8« (jKfflUCft) vtr© 

Rdopted with approvel hy th« court in th« ce«« of In Re !^»t&t» of 

Jaaac A. Cunningham v. Ratfaan ^nd. Adjar *. 311 111. 311, and again 

IB tha oaae of tht fe^^on omy ^ us» m^ Mjanuf ROturlng ^o . ▼• l^f ati^i|^j||'4 

gl 00 trie Manufaeturlntr Cow^aif i y. 369 111. 504, whore the court said: 

"Condltlonel dellTery of a cheok does not depend upon 
whether It shall be detenalned at the «nd of a lawault th®t a 
suf flolent aaount hss or ha« not been tenderad by the oheok, nor 
upon idiether the DSiye© thsireln later agrees th^ t th« cheek la for 
the eorreot amount. If It be for a svm tlfferlng frons the olala 
of the oayee, to whleh sua the payee aust by accepting tfte eheek 
agree It shall be In full of his clalffl, the delivery l« eondltlonal 
until suoh tlae as he doee so agree, ik oheek for s sua lose than 
the anount of & claia se to which there Is a bona fide dispute, 
«^«re suoh oheek Is tendered in full payaent of the aaount due« 
e&nnot be aooepted by the creditor without aoqulesoing In the 
oondltlon ixp on whleh It is tendered," 

It is apparent that the oheok for £75.00 was for a sua 
less thsn plaintiff's elala. There eeeas to have been soae dispute 
between the parties se to the aaount due. This appears froa the 
atteapt of the plaintiff to accept the ©heck *ln part paj^ent" and 
deaand payment of the alleged btrlsnce. the letter of the defendant 
oorporstion aeooapanying the cheeky on the other h&nd^ stated In 
plain language that the 178,00 oheok w»e for the "©ossalssion in full 
• • ♦♦* that it wss "in full** was the condition upon whleh it was 
tendered, and the olsintlff In having It certified @nd depositing It, 
by suoh sotlone aequieseed In the oondltlon. 

From the faots appeariag In this record, the plaintiff was 
not entitled to s flndinf that the defendants were obliged to pay 
1225.00 additional ss a eomals^ion on the 0*Sliea loan and to have 
thst SUB ineludod In the Judgment In the present ease. The plaintiff 
Qontends thnt suoh a partial payiaeiit doe© not, of Itself, and In the 
absenee of any new or additional oottslderation, constitute or effect 
aa aceord and satlefaetion, but discharges the debt oro tai^to only, 
and doee not prevent the oredltor from maintaining an action to 
recover the balance. 'A'lth this contention as applied to the facts 
of this cafe, we oannot sgree, since as we have indicated, the letter 
aeooapanying the check stated thfiit the check was in full payment of 

•^v ijmsM.^ •^^o liiiiM? ifMirft mini *^ o^ oiH^t f %%xun •as 
'i»fi »ni/»© *ci^ •^^^ ,«^ ,iji ««r. ..iflftgifffff ygyyntJWMi tuatia. 

•rot «i ,,wL.;..v ■.».,, ■ -•■^ — ' -^-atii'j «if* -»«)«W»rfv aoq» 

te Xlirit ai Atf XX«4te ^1 ••tTf 

^^'^^ ■ -"i^h »4 »ji mmii Amm UtMa 

t^i't •« aiftX* » to liiif««« #4^ 

IXtft nt a9i*»limm^''' mA$ %^t 9»-^ J{9«ii» 003T« Mt^ jTaitftf •SMr^iui Al«Xq 

»iiotiitbB^9 tii^ fli tft»n9ii3p^m mt»l99» Mmf xA 

saw t/ti;ff*l«j :■ ■ |jain»».-i«^» Dt»«t ttitsr HMwl 

i^(j[ oif &»'«xx^& S''i;;w swjaui«B0idi^ tMbr !>*^^ 3isX&iiXt « of f^X^i;tAe -tea 

tlUtdalAXo «^t «*a^« i^e»»9niQ ntis ai tMnrnn^at •M si A«i«iX«ai ami J^9Jl# 

;r»«1*t-' fj-tls-aaoo ,jn<«li(!titt&itiii&e lime ' »%n xtm to ••«»ad* 

4tX^^- iu^' ' , ^^«^ 9^' 9:fty%aAmkLfi Itia^ ^nul3 ti^il^ li »& hn» Ant^eom a« 

of ai;;!^ /limXistnlAa ae^t TOfJt&«t£> «««lf t«ftY«iq fen m%cb 5«o 

«^o«^ oild &2 Usiii Jitiiimtt»09 aXiix dti¥ •omwXa^^ tiif ^<ivooo«i 

't»:t7tX »ii? ,lr<!«^«olf>Al »v^ tfv «4 i»i!9«7ie tf««n$A faiiaoo «^ ,dtoe olxtt to 

lo :yaftirv r flri stuiw <««fio i»{it $«£|^ )6«f»f« j(o««lo oKY xfiltAJWfmeoo 


th9 ol&la. Then too, the faot %h&% plaintiff h&d the oh^ok oertified 

«nd dopGtlted to its sooount, further Indioates that the olaintlff 

ftcoepted the cheok upon the condition contained \n defendant's letter. 

Xn Tiev of the diepute ooneeming the amount due, -wb are of the 

opinion th&t the eourt was in error in allo%rlng to plaintiff the 

bulanoe of the eXaln th«t vae allegeia to be due m* ooanissionc on 

the 0*aaiie«L lean. 

the faets as thcjr appear in this reoord upon the Vaun^ 

end Buehnell loan indioate that thle ooa^any ovned two pieces of 

iotproTed real est&te on Carroll Avenue in the City of Ghleago - the 

■ftln aanufaeturing buildlnf of the eonpany, at 2114-3S Carroll Avenue, 

and a ssialler two-itory vacant building, at the eouthweet comer 

of Hoyne and Carroll Avenue* , Both properties were enouabered, the 

larger property with a nortgage of $M, 000.00 and the vaeant property 

with a aortgage of 027, 000.00, The Vaughh and Buehnell Ooapany 

applied to plaintiff for a loan on its naln plant soae tiae prior to 

Ootober 30, 1956, but plaintiff was unable to place the loan, the 

plaintiff contends that defendants nlaetate the materiel faets. me 

amendment to the Statement of Slal« that was filed by pl&intiff 

alleges that there was an agreement between the parties for a eommieslo 

9t X% tm the loan If oonswguaated by the defendants, the plaintiff 

Introduoed testimony in 8«!?©ort of that agreement. It i« suggested 

by plaintiff that oounsel for defendants is grossly in error when he 

states in his brl^f t^n^ argument th^t the eoaaisslon on this loan 

reoelttmd by the defendants was $428. 55, and states that the actual 

ecNBUlssloA received by the Howettt wae $1,620.00 in addition to 

appraisal fe<!!>8, out of which the plaintiff was to receive 1^, or 


The eourt examined all the evidence offered by the partlem 

and saw and heard the witnesses and testimony of both parties. Xa 

liCail ▼• ^ol«*n. 263 111. kpp, 361, this court held thnt 'the findlnf 

of a trial court is entitled on review to the same weight as the 


,™ .ii-.'V .;!ii Hi"-;*.. ,t C" ■■•' t J >.J ;5iitf io'i-"/ii|08©Jk 

t«S4^[»o^ £i»iifiai0i bets Mi^tfiiV Sid? •00«0^«TS| to " ' ''-'-^ - 

iix^ninic^ #irr .sifl«&iitii»jb tilt? titf fttuwrnmifr tx im^x ittft ne ^ to 
M neifcr ttxvtm aX ^Xa««ns a I •srA»&A«t«5 ^©t X»«»iii»» *«ifcr ttX9fii«X<{ t*' 

€^ o9ltl^&« «X 00,086»X5& •«* t^trvoB «rf« \<f Mirl»»«rt oeiaiiliMP* 

al ,o»X*naq dJo<f lev \;aMnX^««»t fen* ••»*<9iiJjf\" 4»ii bcui w«« *«■ 

(nX^n Aii^f* »ail^ &X*ii »nuoo Aljit «re ./U Sd^S .jJBJL&Xt£ •▼ IftClI 

anl^ aft /rigl*** •»»« *?d^ oJ Vv iXXo^ ei fnuoo XaXnJ a to 


rerdiot of & Jury". Llk;<ml«»| thie oourt h&s announotd la nu»9rou8 
eatfts thst "Jttdgacnt of th9 Muniolpal Court will not b» set asldft 
If substantial Justlos has bssn dons'*, i^'lnoh v, ^leoonsln Dairy Farm G9 , 
197 Xll. App. 400. Ths total oommlselons rseslTsA by tbs defendants 
la eonneotlon vlth the so-oftXled Yamghn-Bushnell lean, exoXuslve 
at appraisal fees, was 11,620.00, on whleh -plaintiff olalmed and 
proved an agreeaent to pay 1)£, or 1270.00. Plaintiff suggests that 
this eourt has stated In nuaerous eases that "the findings of the 
eourt as t© the faets of a 0«ii», whst^ it is tried without a Jury, 
are entitled to the sane presuaptlone as the verdlet of the Jury*** 
(siting eases }. 

The defendant eontende that the finding and Judgment of 
r^^t trial eourt against ¥ilbur ^, Ho-»ett individually Is olearly 
I erroneous, and suggests thst'^wil9if""fr'l0i«reit individually had 
I nothing to do with the various negotiations exoept in his oapaoity 

I as president and agent of the defendant oorporatlon. fhe Dlaintlff's 


I own evidenoe, it Is urged, established conclusively that all of Its 


dealings were with the defendant oorporation and that it looked 

solely to the defendant eor^oration for vhatever eowsiseions it 

elained were owing. Plaintiff*® Exhibits 1 and la are letters 

written by the defendant oorpor^tion and signed "Wilbur *. Howett 

Cojspany - w, &, Sovett, President." the ^Plaintiff's exhibits 1 and 

2 are letters written on the lette?»head of defendant corporation, 

the letter*»ead being in part as follows: "i^llbur ^, Howett Company, 

OorporatioB, • Industrial Mortgage Ben]i.ers*» fhe language used In 

these letters refer* to the writer in the third person and at no 

place Is there an intimation that Mr, Jlowett is writing in his 

indlvldusl eapaeity. from the faets as they appear he was acting 

for his oorporation and the plaintiff knew thlB to be the faot - as 

is bom out by plaintiff's correspondence. Under date of Maroh 8, 

1640, the plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendant corporation. 

that letter was addressed, "Mr. wiibur £. Howett, President, wllbur 


t?i.'»RWiit fit NkiJMfvnemA ««il ;^l»o» till* ,«>a/iiri»^li «"t'»KC « '^^ #«iM»r 

^ &«vi«e>e«i «nf>i«i'?/.«ft«oo i«3o^ »|ST «00» .q<^ .XII TW 

ba& bfittiAle ttl^niitXc: Actti^ em ,00.o^$,r^ 9«w ,a»«l X««ls*iqQ« to 

•itt Ic afOX&ait Mij?" :*''rlf 9?ef;0 ^i^on^MMi Hi &«tf«9a tad ttmon »14# 
ttti^t 3 ^ir0£l?£«r IMlt^ ,<%i«4» s to i^TMit sill 9t tit tltfOS 

x^ "r«wf!^^»^f?* m— c .-il«§« t'tnoo x«i*t;r ^iit 

?i^^-c ■•iriJ fella ttcif 'Tormc'P Jn^fingsl.'^^ ?(Cft ^f^fv ^tsv tiUiiXsaA 

;;-■ : , ■ ■! ,-. ■ ^ . . - x*»Q*oO 

■<;• >r'>o JnjvJin^'Vj?: "^t '. - &rf^-: ?.? ' «i«i»;f;t»X ana S 

,„ / _, .i . . _ , :'«»rfl9Cf*»i •!!# 

. : Ana^taX 9B9Ai 

^mli'i ■ , . /•;>i*«ifl"ifai AS »tmti$ ai aftaJq 

„ r .. jtoaqao XairiXTlboi 

S"*. - ;f©«1r «rfS -■--■' i"-^ ^'fn5 ?'*««^ '^l.tltnHIr *.dy &«« a©i*fino<!ft©» aid I9t 

■: , . - , ..- -..-.,: - ^.,, .^ „,.....:. .>*»... ,v:.-^ ..;,. ,0*©! 

!• f-,ia(\ 7 ni-iT ' 


E. Howttt Ooapany'* . The plaintiff « own «ttorn«y§ in a written 
d«{iftnd maae upon th« defendant eof^oretlon addresaed their letter 
dated Karoh 14, 1940, &6 followe: *wilbur K. Howett Co. - Attention: 
Mr. wilbiip K, Hovett, rreeldent," It eppesre from these lettere 
vhieh have been celled to our attention, and the feet th&t the 
lettere addressed to plaintiff were algned by the defendant Wilbur 
E. Howett M president of his ooapany end froa the language ueed, 
that he im« aotlng only in behalf of the eorporation. It 4oe» not 
apoear froa any other faott In eviaenee that he eoted In any other 
eapaeity. The only reply whioh pUintiff aakee to the eontention in 
defendant* e brief, thet the Jtidgsent 1» erroneous es to wnbur ^. 
Howett indivldtially, ie th&t no objeetion or <^u®etion wse nade in 
the trial court by v^ilbur ^. «owett that he, peraonally, w^-e not a 
propmr party defendant. Pltintlff oontende th«t, therefore, thie 
c^ueetioa being r«tiaed for the first tl«e ©a appeal is untenable, 
iieau^ingy howetrtr, the euggeetlon a» «ede by plaintiff, still the 
evidenoe offered doee not tend to establish the individual li&bility 
of Wilbur &, Howett, and eueh being the oaee the oourt was, of 
eouree, in error when It entered judgieent against hi«. the pl&intiff 
watt reouired to prove by a prepondersnoe of evidenoe faote which 
would eonneot Mr. Howett with the trensaetion and make him individually 
liable, fhle not appearing, we are of the opinion that the eourt 
erred in enterini; Judgaient siainet Wilbur ^. Howett lndividu&lly« 

The Jjudgment as rendered by the court for the plaintiff and 
against the defendant! for the etie& of |4fS.OO ie reversed, end for 
the reaione stated in this opinion, Judgment is entered by this court 
for the plaintiff and against the defendant, Wilbur i^. Howett Company, . 
a eorporation, for the eum of Two Mundred and Seventy (1270.00) Dollars, 
iTUMMENf msfEiiiB mv jummM7 mm for plaintiff 



t-«9«v .:ii« ta»<3«'»5« »iii to 9«MKJbl»»«rq eft t^twoS .a 

ton 99oif tl ,n9iim*sQ^tm ^n.f 1o IXftdHf ai ^Xao ipnitMi »jnr Ml tui^ 

^•liiro Vi^A ml £>9t(KB 9d ; . .^^^ivs ai niTfrBit ^iMfVo i|fui anonr) n»9^fg» 

%Mt ,d<fo^«><t«<i^^ «;} 'v^Ai tthnn^no^ t'tttal&tH tttn^tnfh tiHiHr ^imfmvi 

X^iltumJU im^XTjtbnX mi9 iielld«$sH» &t bti»t 99m 99oM &»<x»t%« rnmufbJtw 

itx-ii-^i^Li^i «^ .niid 9»{ti.ft|i.«> r««@iii»/i ihv^f^itm $i n»xfyr n9vt9 mt ,#i(«vo0 

.rn.»0o s»if.S ^ari* neX«i«?« *ri^ to *»« ^v> ,^Xn[JsNN?<l« t«« aXiff ,»Xcl»XX 
*% ii>.u&ivikal t99^^ »^ tutJXXi* ?»aia?%« tiMegAV^ ||Jj1i«3'i» fli A»n« 

'ro't ^^ «:.^i»*»t«v«i^ «1 QO«^ll#^ td aM>« fl»«t^ lol ftiriia^tt*^ Mil 4«jU«s* 

4?' 'IS **?*:« i»atM^ *«* "tlXifiiv^Xq fuW let 

-■■■■■^T TO i»iit 911^ •sot ,«oX5«?«©qnro» ft 



▼ . 




atnr &2^^cnAm^of and #lt#? j. cummins 

as B0oeiV«K>*t of ^hloa^ ia^lv^rs 
ft corporation, Jnd H.'JpW^^r FIXMJ 
KmpriX> E. RO'JOf ft^'^Wl^ra of 

doing bualWis »8 %s.>^ ^5^'^C^, JUffts, ) 

ipondante, ' 



^m^J^kAh FROM 


■Jl^ JL ®ir&« ^ ^1^ ^E 

t OAttfd eoBoe befor* us on a petition for leave tiT 

appeal ,i1roo an order entered in the Superior Court gz^nting a nev 
tTX€l, vherein the verdict of a jury waa returned after trial, 
finding the defendant guilty and asineasin^ nlaintiff*s daaag^a at 
15,000, On motion by defendant for a new trial, the verdict was 
aet aside and a new trial granted. Petition for leave to aooeal 
was filed in this court when the petition was granted and an answer 
of the defendant filed thereto. 

At the outset ve are met with a action to disaiss the 
appeal beoauee of nonooapllanee with the provisions of Hule 30 of 
the atj^reac Court and Rule SO of ^is court. 

The authority for granting leave to appeal froa an order 

granting a new trial and the liaitations within which such authority 

aay be exercised, is set forth in Section 77 of the Practice Act, 

as follows; 

**iMn order granting a new trial shall be deeaed to be a 
final order, but a© aooeal isay be taken therefroa, except on leavf 
granted by the revTewing court, or by a Judge thereof in vacation, 
within th irty days after the entry of the order- on Motion and 
notice to adverse partiesT' 

In r' gulating the practice under section 77, it is provided 

in Rule 30 of the Supreae Court and in Hule 20 of the Appellate Court, 

as follows: 



CTb e«^j»ir l^iXaae&Bit tn» x$£lo^ fa»hn9'\9b sift T^ilJbail 

8«w Joliiisv fti^J ,I*li^ vea « 5o«1«* it«^ «ol;ro» aO .000,5-; 

X«««c« o;r p' , -5iiiaf^ latti wen « ftaa •fcias #•• 

•r- >*afft3n:. «^»1* n9iiv ?t»co «irt* ai ft^Xit mixw 

19 ■ ■ 

1 15 

tj«f ,«t«Mo Xjifill 

rtvoXXot •• 

•upon notie» and motion, niftde within 30 v3&y8 after th« 
•ntrj of the order granting the new trial, the reviewing court, or 
»hy Jwdge thereof in vae^tlon, may extend the time for filing the 
trangoript of record and the abetract, end for the granting of 
leave to appeal," 

It will be seen from a study of this rule that there is no provision 

for the granting of a further extension of time or for the filing 

of transcript and the abetraot, ffee jurledlotion of the reviewing 

oourt to grant leave to appeal in suoh eases will expire at the end 

9t 30 days after the entry of the order granting the new trial unlese 

the oourt has, hj order entered within eaeh 50 days, extended sueh 


the case of jUtthuret v. Summe^ et al .. E81 111. &pp, 554, 

eoneemed a petition for leave to appeal from an order granting a 

new trial. An extension of time had fe®«n granted within 30 days 

after the entry of the order and the petitioner sought a further 

extension on motion made after the expiration of eueh 30 days. This 

court therein said et pages 555, §56 and 5^, reepeotively: 

"the novel auestlon presented by the aaotion Is whether 
this court has juriadiotiLon within the extended aeriod. but more 
than 30 days after the eiitry of the order granting © new trial, 
to allow a further extenaion of time for filing s record, abstracts 
and petition for leave to appeal* 

fhis rule does not help plaintiff, for it is reasonably 
clear from a consideration of the rule In ©onneotlon with the 
statute that a |»etition for leave to appeal from »n order granting 
a new trial mttst be filed within 30 days from the entry of sueh 
order, or within such extended time a© the reviewing oourt may allow 
during aald 30 &By& . Cases will undoubtedly arise in whlofa an 
extenaion may become necessary, and the rule quoted makes ample 
provision therefor, with the limitation, however, that the extension 
must be granted within 30 ^La^'B from the ®ntry of the order . It 
does not specify or contemplate th&t a further extension may be 
allowed within the extended period, and after the 50 <iaye following the 
entry of the order granting the new trial have expired. If the 
record in a case be voluminous and there are Ajuestlons involved 
which reoulre a lengthy extension of time for pmeparing the trens- 
solpt of record, abstracts and petition, the lltlgio.nts, who are 
presumed to be familiar with ell the clroumstanoes ot the case, 
may request an extension that will give them ample time and 
opportunity to pnupmrB their record and petition, but the motion 
to extend the time must obviously ^e madis within the 50 d&yg 
following the entry of the Judgment as provided by '^ule 20, " 

Gojteivo^q r« «i t»'' 

in;r 10 fj^<^« » ment iNMia stf Xiiv il 
i'-.ij ic aoxt«*;r3» «£9ii>iinf « to 9fsiJ>iiNnE]|. «di# «9t 

stsl.flju Isii* »f«»r. siij 3ttit«si^ left's;: : ^d^ &d* ttt#t« •t«b 06 to 

il9cr« &9dis«^x« ,i9tt ' i^« aiasi^ &>"i^;rit«> «i»dto xd ,8«if Iniroo td^ 


aa .^f|A .fix xss ,.4ft Iff .i>fiiii»l *■ irmUnM to mm «{!? 

ix-C«yi7<»ftfiii(Ms ^ittd AAA tsd ,dde ••sjuf tji ftJUta ai9««iiy ^uoo 

1 ! ' i.'IC "> 

a^ -4...., 
tt gfJivoXIet 6 

■50;* ir 



•)t«M© s»d# i'6 X'vJ'a^ «>ilt «r»l'l« fii«fr OS oaili 

' tot aoi:ri:foq jbiu 

3»oi> «Xini mi/tt 
JTsTsf>fe'Cjoo « tmit 1UI»X« 

'^'<'«'; ' liiwu tUMiw to ,10^0 


.->, j» ._• 


:^- xtici9 orfi i|iiivo.riot 

The right to appeal from an order granting a n«w trial 
Is a oriTllega not h«*retofoi^ gliran litigenta, and it waa olearly 
tha intent or the act, and the rules adopted Bupplementary thereto, 
tliat the right should be exercised promptly. This it evidenoed 
bjr ooRpariaon of Rule 20 with Rule 9, which provides for extensions 
of tiae for filing records, abstract e and briefs in ordinary 
appeals, upon good cause shown, within the court's discretion. 
K^der %le 20, appeal from an order granting a new trial is treated 
separately and is similar to T^le 21 governing interlocutory 
apoeals, in thj»t it contemplates prompt action on the part of 
litigants. In conformity with these Views, we hold that under the 
provisions of the act and rules of this court the extension must 
be granted within 30 days after entry of the order granting a new 
trial; after that the oower to grant a further extension does not 

At the timm the foregoing opinion was written, in order 

that there might bo unanimity of action between the bar and this 

court, the opinion was sr^eoially ooncurrod in by all the justlose 

of this court and such ooneurrenoe read as follows: 

"We concur In holding that under the proTleions of the 
Civil Practice Act and the rules of this court any extension of 
time for the filing of records, abetracts and petition for a^^real 
from an order granting a new trial must be granted within 30 '>ay? 
after entry of the order by the trial oourt i thst the court has 
a^ power to grant a further extension after the expiration of 

In the instant ease it sppeare thet the order granting a 
new trial was entered in the S^erior Court on July 1, 1940 and the 
period of 30 days thereafter exp^lpod on July 31, 1940, Prior to 
the expiration of 9v»h 30 days, petitioner filed in this court a 
short record and, by leave of court, s typewritten petition for 
leave to mpoeal. The short record filed consisted of plaeita, 
order granting new trial, praecipe for record, notice of filing 
praecipe for record and certificate of the clerk. It was not *a 
transcript of such portions of the record of the trial court 
£.8 shall be necessary to present the onettlon for review *, as is 
described by Rule 20 of this court. Ho abstract vas filed within 
30 days as is required by i^ule 20, 

Prior to the expiration of such 30 days, on motion of 
petitioner, an order was entered in this court granting an extension 
of time for 80 days from July 31, 1940, to file a complete record, 
abstract and an additional and amended petition for leave to appeal, 

•nae dO-day extension of time granted for the filing of 







«i' ■ • ■ ^v?»tf rtoi#©s t© \*l«i,n'-wT^,' ?c: *;i^;iai n'uni^ .intiS 


9AS hem 0*<?I ,jr tXtfti «<> drt.«*feS toitsri,-" ■:•■ «/. fewi9*a« bav • vrta 

A tiUiGO uMi al fe»ii1 rs««citiJ©q ,9t*fe OS Hairtt *!«> iiol#»tiqrx« sill 

»«*lo«I • ;si,8a€io B»lJil 6^«*©H3-i d'S.«>*49 W4T «Xfl«Q^« o> 9T«»X 

a«XXXt Tto «i>iiJt>fl .i'leswi 'not 9qlt ,*s* wsnri «aita«tB »•*«• 

aiativ Ibml re«53*4« oM .Jhuioe «Xd:^ )o 9S tXtfR irf ft«¥in:ft«»ft 

«Moo««t •?»Xqff«o • sXil e# .OJ^QX «X€ x<f<'^ "o^'t tX^ Ot «i9l •«i^ lo 
•X«»<q4 e$ tveeX lo*^ oci^i^wq ft«fta«MRUi bsu XaaoXtUbB« ■« iiftt t»««i^acfji 
lo yaiXll mtU tot £)«iRst:« nmU lo floiBii«;tx« t«i^-09 •iff 


m eoaplet* reeord, abstraet or &ddition&l and anendad patition for 

leave to appeal expired vlthout such oosplete reoo d, abetraot 

or additional and amended petition for leave to appeal having been 

filed* Akehurat v. Buaae. et al ,. 281 111. App, 664, et eeq* 

There were a enooeseion of aotions for further extenaions 
and orders granting further extensions from tiae to tine, all of 
whieh were made and entered more than dO days after the entry of 
the order granting the new trial and when the power to grant euoh 
further extensions did not exist. Aitehurst ▼. ^utnae. et al.. supra . 

This court being without power to issue sueh orders 
granting an extension of time, it neoessarily follows that defendant's 
motion to dismiss th« appeal of plaintiff should Do granted* 

For the roftSOAs herein given the appeal of plaintiff is 


lol miilii^n hi^^aum kna XBnu^iiliMba i« tmant94k \Snoovi •t«X<|»»» m 
ittm-Sm-- -a«f 9t«i<aB©» simt& titGAti-^ ts^Xqn^ X«eQ^« ©* •ir»«I 


JW,.<- .1, ,-.n5fiSH 








UNIOir^f t^e Unl1 

States of i 




Molly Enolmer brought an action against del^gWCSITf" seeking 
to recover $1000 on a beneficial certificate issued by defendant to 
her husband, Martin Encimer, December 8, 1925, who died November 
6, 1936» The defense Interposed was that Martin Encimer was not a 
member of defendant at the time of his death, having been suspended 
October 29, 19 36, for non-payment of dues. While the suit was 
pending the complaint, by leave of court, was amended by making 
Prank and Mary Encimer, parents of the deceased, additional parties 
plaintiff and later the widow, Molly Encimer, was dismissed out of 
the ease. There was a Jury trial, a verdict and judgment in plain- 
tiffs* favor for #1202*87, and defendant appeals. 

The record discloses Martin Encimer was about 16 years of 
age when the certificate was issued to him; that he was required to 
pay 82 cente per month to remain in good standing; that almost all 
the time from the date the certificate was issued to the day of his 
death - a period of about 10 years and 10 months - he was in ar- 
rears in the payment of the amount required of him but the Local 
Lodge of which he was a member and which was located in South 
Chicago, paid defendant Grand Lodge, located at Joliet, promptly 
each month, the last payment being made for the month of September, 
1936, Prom time to time Martin and his mother made payments on ac- 
count to the Local Lodge for idiich credit was given, 

John Likovich, secretary of the Local Lodge, testified he 
made a written report to the Grand Lodge about October 29, 1956, 
advising it that Martin was behind in his dues and the report showed 



H T 


,TH'-'^- ■ :-, r,.^., ,<,,; 

. ..a/r a'SLB 

OT/^u:'n^n vft-r'**r.>:fi viTJckwHAO aKj&o 

■J 94jr !to v.ovM 
. ..a/r aausavijac howmoo»o s'^tuui. -^-^ ^ ^ ^ - ^^^^ ■ ^sa 

'>S^ _.j„^jMiwr->»»««*-*»'»-»'>«l**'«»'*' '" ''^' * '* * ''»'**» ' i '» -^ ' ' " i »f" "«^"''" ' ' > ';^ 

jj- JnBX'nslafe ifd Jbsj/Bai sjBOllii'iso LaioJtlenscf 48 no 0O0I| levoosi ©;>■ 

)9£!n9q8jja xxoscf a/iivsrC ,.cfsrs9-& alii to 9Bi/.d" 9ii;t *s ;fxu5J&fl9^e£( ^o i9cfma0 
8J8W JJEj/8 sxf* 9lifIVJ .ssiff) lo Jneffl-^Bq-noij lol ,SBei <e2 i9Cfo3'oO 

lelJiBq L&aoli i.hh& ^J&saBsoef) aiicf lo aJnsiBq (isjKlonS ^ib?*! ins insi*? 

lo juo £>9aalfli8l5 8JSW ,i:9JiTion3 -^IIoM ,wof)lw sxiS" la^&I £>«fl l^i^Tnl^Iq 

-nlBlq nl tnsmsJbut -^fi-s ^J'OJtMev b tlsiid" xi^-'L ••* 8*^ siexlT .dsse 9ri:f 

.aljasqqfl -ia.&hti^'l^h ht\& ,?8,S0SI| lol •xovjb^ 'a'illi' 

to ansoY 81 d^irocf-s eav •xsmlonS ni^'isM 898oIob1£» Moost: sxlT 

Il£ S'BoioIft itsd^ ;3xilf>ns(t'a f)oo'^ nl /tiBmsi oJ" cfd^noia -xaq B;fn90 28 \b,<:^ 

-IS al 8jRw eil - ajl;J'fiora 01 Bn^ aiESY OX d'jjocfjs lo Jboiisq a - dJaei) 

IbooJ 9ri* iJ-xjcf ^tA lo I)SK£lup9i :rnuofflj8 erid" lo driemY^q o^i' nl aiasi 

rid'ifoS ni BeJsooI aew riolxiw f>ns iscfiasffi b bbw 9x1 rfoliiw lo 98f>oJ 

xUqffionq ,t9lIoL i& iigjsool ,9Sl)oJ l>nij'TO iJ-nafmslsii Jolsq jOgaolxIO 

inecfcnsJqsB lo xi^tnoai 911? tol 9l>Bffl ^nlecf :tn9ffi"^CBq ih&L srld" jflJnoin xiOBo 

-OS no 8;rn9ffl"\£Bq gSam «i9ri;}"om a Iri Jbna nli'isM gal* oJ efflld" fiioil ,8561 

.nevJt^ aaw d-JtJ&e^o rfolrfw nol s^JboJ IbooJ 9x£J o* d"ffi/oo 

=>r{ f>el'ijtd"8 9i" ,93f>oJ IbooJ ^Ai lo Tjis^siooa ,rIoIvojfIJ urioL 

,6591 ,P2 nocfoJoO d-wodfi e^oJ J5nBi« grf* oJ tioqsi neJtJtrtw b 9l>aii 


he was suspended October 29, 1936, The report was received by the 
home office November 2, 1936. The witness further testified, "I 
notified him [Martin] to come In for October but he did not come in, ' 
and he produced a postcard vdilch was copied from memory as a copy 
of the one he had mailed to Martin, but upon objection the card was 
not admitted* 

On the other side the deceased's sister Ann testified that 
the only card Martin received from the Local Lodge was one which 
notified him to attend a regular meeting of the Local Lodge November 
1, 1936; that Martin was living with his parents and her at that 
time and was very 111» It further appears Martin died November 6, 
1936, of meningitis after an illness of one month; that after his 
death the matter was taken up with the Local Lodge for payment; pay- 
ment was refused on the ground that the deceased was not a member 
at the time of his death. 

Counsel for defendant in his brief says "up to and including 
the month of September, 1936, the Lodg'e Secretary advanced Encimer's 

dues monthly, remitting same promptly each month to the Supreme Of- 

flee. The Record does not show/these advancements were made through 

any understanding or arrangement between Encimer and the Secretary; 

neither does the Record show that the Secretary v<ras authorized to 

use the Lodge funds for this purpose, 

"There is no dispute in the evidence but that Insofar as the 

Supreme Office records were concerned, Encimer's dues were, at all 

times, promptly paid. Not until the Lodge Report for the month of 

October, 1936, dated October 29th, 1936, was received at the Supreme 

Office, through the mall, did the Supreme Office records disclose 

Encimer to be delinquent. This Report carried him as suspended. His 

name did not appear as a member on the November, 1936, Report, The 

Record does not contain any evidence that the Supreme Office had any 

knowledge of the fact that the Lodge, or Lodge Secretary, was ad- 
vancing Encimer's dues," Counsel contends that such payment by the 
Local Lodge to the Supreme Lodge "does not create a waiver or estop- 

sri;r Xcf S>9Vleo9i sbw tioq^t 9dT ,8591 ,62 iscfoitoO 6©&H©qajja 8Bw 9ii 

,Ri sinoo a- on bib sif *«cf tsdo^oO "xo^ nl emoo o;f [nid"n-sM3 alxl JaeilWon 

lijqoo s as X'joffiftin tafnt bQtqpo 8i3W ilojtjchf &T:so*aoq « X>»o«fio'iq ©d fin* 

3SW Mao Oiid- noi*09t,tfo «oq« ^»«^ ,ni*i£M o:^ J&oXl»« f>«ri ©xf ©ho »ri* Ito 

ts^i^ b^ltiisst nxiA isJbIb a'BssBsosjb edi 9btB iQiiio ©xlij" nO 

i^olrfw ©no 8BW ©s^oJ leootl ©rf* aoil fievlsos-x nl?*!**!- M'Acr vfw<> »^ 

cedissToi! 93l)oJ IjbooJ ©ri? lo gnld'©©® ifiIi/S9i a J&n«J'*« oi' atJtil bsttitoR 

d-fldJ Jb lojd ba& ad-fis'usq six! ri*±w gnivll 8«w nlJisM itAXi* tSsei ,X 

,a i9Cfai9Voi4 I>9i:J!> nitfiBM aiBsqqjs isdiiut ^1 *lll X'^^r bbw bn& smtt 

sill i9;t^j3 JBd:;t ;xl;rnoja ©no ^o saenlll n* 'te^^lB aUXaninsar ^c ,6561 

-XBq jJnsflc^aq lol: ©^oJ IbooJ 9dt ri^Mw qu neiB* ©sw 'i©Jd"BiH Bdi Aissb 

iscfiaam b Jon ©aw l>©8fl©096 ©!!;}■ d"Brid- inifoig 9dif no i©aul©-i ©bw ;fn©M 

»diBBb Bid lo affile ©xi^ ta 

?,nlbsjLonl bnB o* qjj" b-^b© Islicf ©Id ni ;^flBJbn©l©f> lol I©anjjo0 

j'lOffllona l>9onfiv.6B •?iB*9io©fi e^oJ 9dt ,85GI ,i9Cfffl©*q©8 lo dJnoiB ©ri* 

-10 'BsiBiquB sdi ot dtnom Ao&s xX;tqffioiq ©««© snitf^lmoi ^^Idtnom ©©jjJb 

laifO'srfi" 9b&m ©new aJnsflisonjBvfjs ©a9ii3"\woxls Jon asoJb Moosfl ©riT ,9011 

{\ifitBio9S. ©riJ JbflB i^oil&nl aev^tsd ^nsfflegnBiiB no ^lba»^BiBbau xn* 

o* JbQsiiorid'UB ©Bw xiAisiosB 9df isidi woria lr£oo©H ©riJ 8©a£> i©£l*l«n 

,9aoqiMq ©111* io1 sMul ©^^oJ 9dt ©ai; 
Qdt SB iBloanl Jed* iud oonsSlv© ndt al &tuqalb on al ©isriT" 

IIb d'B ,9t:9w a©ju£> a'leinlona ,f)9m:©onoo ©tsw a£ioo9«x ©oillO ©in©iquB 

1o ri:rnoffl ©ri* lol iioqeR ©gfioJ ©d* Llinv *oli .^iBq YW<I«oiq ,©©■!* 

9ti9tqvB 9di *B Jlisvlsosn sbw ,35QI ,djes i©do;r©0 £i©;rBi> ,85CX ,i©do;roO 

©aoXoBJtS aJ&iooei eolllO ©ffi©ique ©ri:r bib ^llAm ©d;r dstfoid^f ,©oi110 

bXH .fc©.6n©qBtn9 ©fl tnid bel'it&o d^ioqftH alriT ,J'c©jjpfllX©Jb ©cf oJ isinlonS 

9xfT ,;rToq©H ,859X ,'j©dis9VoM 9d* no isdmam b bb iB©qqB *on JS>XJ5> ©fluan 

XCI& bad ©olIlO ©aieique ©riJ i^Bri* ©oneiira ^wb niB^noo Jon a ©of) Mooafl 

-BB aBw .YiBJeiosfi ©sJ^oJ no ,©s^oJ ©rii^ *Bd* d-osl ©dJ 1o ©sf>©Xwon2[ 

©d* x<i in9a\x&q douB iBdH a6c©*noo IssnuoO " .©©uJo 8'i©JHlO0a -salotiMV 

-or* a A TO *ffivl«ir £ ft*BSTo ^-ofl a©oB" ©3ifcoJ ©fiftiQifB ©d* o;f ©S^oJ XBtoJ 


pel which prevents forfeiture of a Certificate for non-payment of 
assessments •• and that the court erred in not directing a verdict 
for defendant. Counsel says he has been unable to find any case 
passing upon this question In Illinois but a number of cases from 
other jurisdictions have sustained defendant's contention. We are 
unable to agree with this contention and think the matter has been 
passed upon by the Supreme court and by this court, contrary to 
counsel's contention. Conductors' Benefit Assn v» Tucker . 157 111, 
194J Routa V. Royal League . 274 111, App, 152, and cases there 
cited, discussed and applied. 

In the Tucker case the well-known rule of law was an- 
nounced that unless a clear intention to declare a forfeiture is 
shown, such forfeiture would not be enforced; and that a mutual 
benefit society, such as the defendant in the instant case, may by 
its conduct and course of dealing, waive a forfeiture of membership 
Incurred under its by-laws for non-payment of dues; and that whether 
there is a waiver is generally a question of fact for the jury. 

It has also been held that where dues or assessments are 
paid by the Local Lodge to the Supreme Lodge, the Local Lodge is 
agent of the Supreme Lodge and the general rule in such case is 
"that the by-laws of a mutual benefit society, limiting the author- 
ity of its local organizations or officers in these respects [the 
by-laws which provided the Local Lodge had no authority to waive 
any requirements of the by-laws], are unavailing where such local 
body or officer has apparent authority, " Routa v. Royal League . 
274 111, Apps 152, We are entirely satisfied with the holding of 
another division of this court in the Routa case. We are also of 
opinion that defendant, through its course of conduct, was estopped 
to declare a forfeiture without giving personal notice to the in- 
sured. Conductors' Benefit Assn , v. Tucker , 157 111, 201, where it 
was said: "Where, out of sixty-four payments made by the assured, 
sixty- three had been made after the time limited by the by-laws had 
expired, and no conditions were Insisted upon for re-lnstatement, it 



'io un9fi!Y,fiC!:-non tot sJaoillJieO & to eiaitetiot a;ffl»T9'xq dolsiv Lwi 

^Dlb'xey & 3iiid"o»al6 ion al b9rfi& iiuco qM ieja bt^B ■ai'atifflaBaeaA 

o&BO \;nj3 bnlt o;^ BldBCiu fi9»cf aaii 9£l ax«« leanwoO .^J-iiainsleJE) lol 

aroil: aseBO to -:!:3crfiij;/n .9 ^ucf aioxijtlll ni noid'Sdifp sXil;^ noqtj snisaAq 

©ijs oW ,nciJxi9jG00 a'd'n&fcnst©^ Sfiflla3"ajjs ©Viwi anoii"oli>8i'5:0t. isriifo 

flsed aBri leJJBH! sriit" inlil^- buB aolineinoo sidi jdJlw ssis^ ot nldAau 

ot Y'i/jTirf'iioo ,JiiiOO etdi ^0 I)C£ S^itfoo ©maiqjje edi ^cf noqu i>eaaaq 

.III ?5I tSS^oijT *v naaA J-.t'jfefnyg |8-xo3'ouJ&floO .coUnsJcoo a'Xasnuoo 

s'ssi^l ^afSBo .Dfl-«i t!?5X ,gqA «III :i>S'S , air;^£eJ l&\cH. .v jBjruofi ;*9X 

,L9iIqqB Baa ^eaai/oa.^'^^ /-iV*'' 

-iiB e«w -/ijl 'ic «)X/;'^ nwoii^^-jxsiit ©iii'. aajjto leaj^ojjT ed* nl 

al eiutl^tiot B 9T:JsIo9i> o* noUnaJ/ii 'ibsXo a aaaXuw ^Ad;f ij^onuon 

l&uium & uB£iit i)nB ;l)©oio1:fi© stf Joe Mjjow eiii;ti9ti©l rioua ^ovodB 

yd Tssfli ,93J3o JnB^anl Qdi ai ta&ba9't9& sifJ aa xlotta ^x^qIoob ilt^asd 

qitfa'xscfaoffl to siwJie'iiot b ©vXjbw ,afllXBei> lo aaiuoo baa ioubaoo Bit 

8xi;J'9ilw iBdt bns {Bsub to i[i9mx&<l-noR lot a\fjBX~Ycf aJi labnu betiuoat 

^Xiul 9di lot iOHt to xioXi"8©up B xXXBianss al isvXbw b ai aiaritf 

91S a;rfl9£H8as85B -so ^sub Qisilw d-Bxi* J&Xeri nsscf obXb e«rf ^"^ 

aX e-gbod XbooJ axx;^ ^e^XtoJ Sisd'xqi/S sxti^ o;^ s'^oJ XbooJ @a7 xd i>XBq 

8i 98S0 riojj-a at elut XBisnes SiJJ f»flja a^oJ ©jsaiqifS gifd' to Jna^B 

—lodiiSB Qdi -^titrnti ^xt^toos Jitsnscf ls.utua b to awsX-'^cf »£[;}■ i&di^ 

Qdi"] sd"09q3si saarl* ni anaoXtto io BnotissisiA^io XbooX aJX to xit 

svXbw o^' x^X-xori^wB on b&d ssl)oa XbooJ ®xiJ XiaXiXvoiq JtloXxiw BWBX->ccf 

XbooX riowa aisifer anXXlBvaiiif 9^B^Caw«X-■^c^ ezi* to ad'nafitaiijjpsi x^ta 

. 8i.f^B9J XsYoH ,▼ Bj'ju c fi " ,xd'X'3:oii;tiJB ^rueiBqqB bbxI 'isoXtto io x^od 

to ■iiniX>Xori an* ria^Xw J^aXtaXtBa -^XsiXd-fia sib aW .2SX »qqA ,XXI i-VS 

to oaXs 9^B aV ,©rbo siucR Bdi at iiuoo Qtdt to aotatrlb loxWorts 

X)8qqc?89 BBw ^ioisbaoD to aa^iwoo s*X liaijoin;}^ ^ia&bnotdb i&di aotalqo 

-nt Qdi oi Botioa Xanoaieq anXvXa *juofl*Xw e'luitstiot & ai&loQb oi 

it 9'iexfw tXOg .XXI V5I . ie3£ojjT »v .fxaaA Extensa 'aioJ-Qi/JjcoO ,X>snua 

^betvBBz 9di -^cf el>Bm acTnainY'Sq luot-Y^-xXa to tuo ,9io£fti» :f>XBa asw 

fjBjrf BWBX--(tcf srii^ xcf bQitatl. smX? 9il? iai"tB 9i)Bfli naacf bad s©iii;t-X*3cXa 

X ,ifn9ffi©d'B3^snX-9'i lot noqjj X)ei"8XanX eiaw anoXJi^noo on XtnB (lis'xXqxa 


was held, that such a course of conduct of the company estopped it 
from Insisting upon a forfeiture for non-payment within such time 
without giving personal notice, that thereafter prompt payment 
would be required^ " We think the notice claimed to have been given 
by defendant was wholly insufficient to forfeit Martin's member- 
ehlp for past defaults. But in any event, whether any notice was 
given was a question for the Jury. 

Complaint is also made that there is a fatal variance be- 
tween the allegations of the complaint "and the evidence which a- 
mounts to a total lack of proof » " In support of this it is said 
the complaint alleged compliance had been made with all of the 
provisions of the beneficial certificate while the proof showed no 
proof of death, as required, had been made. It is obvious that had 
proofs of death been made it would have been unavailing because 
defendant denied liability. On the trial and in this court defend- 
ant contended that Martin was suspended prior to his death* The 
law does not require the doing of a useless act. The allegation 
was unnecessary. The point now made was not mentioned on the trial 
and cannot be urged here. 

Complaint is made to the giving of instructions Nos, 2, 
4 and 11 at plaintiffs' request. By instruction No. 2 the jury were 
instructed that the Local Lodge was the agent of the Grand or 
Superior Lodge and from what we have heretofore said, the instruc- 
tion was proper. By instruction No. 4 the jury were told that if 
defendant, by its acts and conduct had waived prompt payment it 

could not, without giving reasonable notice, insist upon prompt 
payment and declare a forfeiture. This contention is also dis- 
posed of adversely to defendant's contention for the reasons here- 
inbefore stated. Instruction No. 11 told the Jury that if they 
found the Issues for plaintiffs the measure of damages was |1000, 
the face of the certificate with Interest to the date of the death 
of the insured and it is said this was erroneous because the amount 
of damages exceeded the ad daamum which was but $1100.67. Counsel 

Ji bsqqotBe xn»qmoG 9tii to Jexii^no© to eaiwoo j» riouB iedi ^bl9A 8«w 
9«1* dovB alciitw 3'n9«ncfiq--fion lot aiirjieliot b noqu "gatiBlatil aioil 

nsvia n99cf 9v«£[ o:f bBmlBlo soJtJon ails' ixxirC? sW * .Jbs'iJtupa'x 9cf ftljjow 

-•xscfcteffl a'niitiBM ^fisliol o* d^nsloiiluanl xlloA-w bsw ta&bnstsb -^jd 

aaw soiiJon ^xiA neriS'exfw ,3'fl9V9 x^* «X ^i/S ,83'Iirs"l9i Jaaq lot qJtrte 

.X*"*?, erf^ lol fio±*a9wp a sbw flsvlg 
-Qcf 9onalT:;aT L&itat a mt sisrit ifBril' 9f>Bffl oslu si JnlfilqwoO 

-B rfoiriw 90fl9f>lV9 9113^ bcB" JnlfilqiHOo srit to arroJttJBSsIIfl ei» fl99vr* 

bt&B al nTl 8iri* to Sioqqan nl ■ ^tooiq to iosi latot a o* ai^nuom 

9ri3- to lla ri*lw 9l)B«i n99cf b&d eonsllqmoo bs^ellA ^atBlqmoo eii* 

on £>9woifB tooiq adi elldv et&oltt^i90 lAloltecsd 9dt lo anolalvoiq 

bad *J8fi* auolvdo al JI ^eb&m neea' Jbari ,fi9iljjp9i bb ^diAeb tx> iooiq 

9ai;«09cf snlllBVBnu «e9cf 9r&d bLuov ^l 9bam n99cf fW'«9A 1o atoortq 

-Jbng'isJD :?t:jjoo aln* nl finfi IbIiiT sdJt aO ,x*lltdi&tl b9la9b inAbtieteb 

9rfT ,di&9b aifJ o;f loliq B9JE)n9q8ii8 saw nJtrf^i«M JflrO- Jb9£)n9^floo ifns 

H0l*«a9ll« 9x{T ,d-OB aB9l9Bi;; B to sflloA 9xi* 9niup9'x ioa B9ob wbX 

iBli* 9ii* no b9aQiin9m ^oa bbw sfeaffl won Jnloq 9j1T .x'XB88909nm/ aaw 

.9i9fi l>9gnjcr 9Cf ^onnao bna 

,£ ,8oM anoJt;foiri*a«± lo ^nlTlS sdt c? 9X)Bbi aJt *nlBlq«oO 

low xiul 9dt 2 ,oJ! aoliout^&nl t® .tagypert 'atlli'nlBXq *b IX f>flB *■ 

•so f>flBi^D gxld- to Jxisss 9Xf* »bw «sf)oJ XbooJ eritt *Bxlt f)«^oin*afli 

-ojrirrsnl axfS- tfiiaa 9ioto*9T9ri 9Vfirf 9w isfbt aioil Sn* 98l>oJ loligqwe 

ti ^BJii- Mo* 9iefw ^iirt ^^^ J^ •©'5 floJ:;^Oin[*e^Jt x& .laqonq bbw noW 

;rx ;tn9imEBq ^qmoiq f>«viBw bad ioubnoo btm a^os ait id ^in&bastab 

iqmotq noqu tstGtiJt ,90i;?on Bld&aoBaai igrilvXa iuod^flv ,;fon f>Xwoo 

-3lf> oalB aX nol;ffl9;tnco aiifT ,9iuil9tiot a 9iAl09b bn& d'n9iani;Bq 

-91911 snosaei odt lot noi:fn9d'nco b^ Snabaet9b ot xX98i9Ti&B to i)9aoq 

\9di tt iadi xt^i «ri* &Xo:f II .oM noXJoinJenl ,l>9JB;ra 9'xot9crfll 

,000X1 8BW 89aBfflBf) to 9'SU8«9fl( 9/1* 8tti*fllJBXq lOt 89iJa8i 9riJ BflUOt 

disi9b 9ri* to 9;tBi) 9di oi ;fB 919*01 ri*iw g^BoXtlJ-xdo erf* to soBt erf* 
*ai;oinB 9ri* eauBoecf ai'oanoTie bbw elrf* bl»B al *X ^hb Ae'swacl erf* to 

1!S CNrt 

r r4!i ^.^^ >«,. ^^ »<«•.• on-oaraVk Iko is<4''+ F>ApiaAn-v< 

says: "TMs objection ie not argued as a distinct reason for re- 
versal **♦ for the reason that the Record does not show that the 
attention of the trial court was called to the fact that the verdict 
exceeded the ad damnum , ♦♦* and Defendant concedes that the trial 
Court should have been granted an opportunity to make a timely 
correction, " 

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Circuit court 
of Cook county Is affirmed, 

Matchett, J,, and McSurely, J, concur. 



-©1 io1 aoenei :}-onl;J-sir( & 8« !h9irgiB Son al nolioeldio zlsfS* :ai«8 

9ilJ tRtiif woria a-Ofl 8 sob B^oosH erl* isdi fiOBBSi arfJ lol ♦*♦ iBaiev 

:tn.56T:ev eilJ d-fixl* ^TojbI 9x1* o* ^ellAO saw ^iwoo XaliJ sri* lo floli'nsif;^^ 

■^leraid- B 9.iteffi o* Y^inuJ'xoqqo na f>9*nB'i^ nsscf evjsri fili/oria JiiroO 

■ ,noJt*oeinoo 

.fiennmB al xinsjoo iooO lo 



jpellee,^ ) 

HAWTH0l?8fi^ ROOFTT*<S-. TJ^E COJ^'AMY, . 
a Corporation, et §1^4,^^, '"Mf^ / ) 

ANNA F, CAi%LSONi/x^^ 

Appellant. T' 


The Lawndale National Bank (trustee named in a trust deed. 
dated Maroh 15, 1928, executed by the Hawthorne Roofing Tile 
Company, a corporation, to secure an indebtedness of )$35,000) filed 
its Bult in chancery December 12, 19S8, to reform the trust deed and 
to foreclose the lien of the trust deed as reformed. 

The Hawthorne Roofing Tile Company, a corporation, the 
mortgagor, and Anna P. Carlson, were named as defendants. Afterward 
the complaint was amended and other parties were made additional de- 
fendants but so far as the record discloses no one appeared except 
Anna F, Carlson, She filed her answer and the cause was referred to 
a master in chancery to take the evidence and make up his report. 
He found there was a mutual mistake made by the parties in des- 
cribing the property in the trust deed and recommended a reform- 
ation and a decree of foreclosure. Afterward a decree was entered 
following the recommendations of the master, and Anna F, Carlson 

The only contention made by defendant is that the court 

was not warranted in decreeing a reformation of the trust deed. The 

property conveyed by the trust deed as security, as appears from 

the trust deed is : 

"The West One Hundred Twenty-Seven (127) feet measured on 
West 3l8t Street, of that part lying North of center of Ogden 
Avenue (except streets) of the East half (E 1/2) of the Vfest half 
(W 1/2) of the North East (Quarter (NE 1/2) of Section Thirty-two 
(32) Township Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Thirteen (13), East of 
the Third Principal Meridian. " 


.Vtwuod 2i^b / 

^ { ,tf]2BlXaq.qA' 

Cta — 

f*^ «ll®i J' 

.THUOD. aHT'io W0IHI10 SHT aiHiiaVUSQ flOHWOO*0.20IT&¥V^»»l' 

9lIT aniloofl 9fl'iofl*WAH ari;}- ^cf i)9;ti;oex9 ,8S6I ^31 rioiBM f)eJB6 

i)9ll1: (000 ^SSi to aeenfesi-cfsfini njs siuoss od" ,fiolJflnoq'xoo & ,-^fli&qaoO 

na f)99f> ^BjJiJ 9ri* anolsi ocf ,8561 ,21 iscfcieosCI ^i^onsrio ni: S'iiia 8;tl 

,l)9flnol9i as ^S9l) i'airs* oxi:}' to n&tl QAi QBoLo^iot oi 

srij ,noi;d"5'-xoqioo b ,\;n£qBioO eXIT snlloofl snrioxiJwBH erIT 

^Bwis^lA .3;fnB.5n©l9X) aB Besuan ei»w ,«08XibO ,1 bhaA J&na (losBaJiom 

9fi XBnoXd'If)l)B Bb&Bi Slew asitfiflf^ isii^o i)nB bobUBSB aBw ^fnlaXqaoo edJ 

;fq90X9 XjQiBeqqB ano on sseoXoalJ!) -bioost 9£i* ba ib^ oa 3"jxf aJna^nat 

<t 69119191 e^w 9BJJB0 9113" ba& iswanB lefi belli sxie .noaX'XBD ,M BnnA 

.3^ioq9i 2l£i qu 32tBffi fiflB 9«neJbiv© srI* eis;^ oJ Acieonjsilo ni leteam a 

-89i) nl a9i:?iBq ^di ijcf sMm e^^jBCfaJtni XBi/d'WBr b bbw 9i9xi* bnuol 9H 

-ffliOiSi B f)9Jc>n9in«ioo9i fins Jbs9f> *sin* ari;}^ nl Y^isqoiq arid' gflicflio 

f)©ied'n9 BB^ 99i09Jb b i>iBwi9i'lA .aiueoXoeiol: to ©eioal) a bsi& 

hosXibO Jl BnnA Mb ,i9;faBBi exi^- lo anol:tBf>n»afflOO©i edt gfilwoXXol 


cTiiJOO 9Ai itBxlJ al ^nB^fi9l9J& "^cf 9h&m nolJnsJnoo xLno 9£[T 

sjdT .£>99X> Jain;^ griJ to noicTBaiiotsi b gniesiosi) ni f)9d'nBiia-w iJ'Ofi saw 

Hioit aiB9qqB aa ^xi Iiuob^ sb .6996 d"8 0iJ gxfd- ^a ^e-^^gvnoo Y^isqoiq 

: al i)99l> i'Bui* 9ri;t 

no ^enjBBSEi *9et (VSX) nevsci-^i'newT fcgiJbnwH 9n0 JagV? oxlT" 

n9l>80 to is^neo to d^io^l mi-X^ ii&q it^rf^f to ,^9©i*e 3-8X5 iteaVf 

tXsxl ^TegV/ 9ri;J to (S\X 3) tXad ;^aBa Qsii to {8;r99i*a Jqeoxs) ©unevA 

ow*-YJilr£T nold-oee to (;5\X an) leJiawi,' Jaaa rfcTioM oxlJ to (S\X W) 

to ^a/i£ ,(5X) n99Jilifr 9-%aaR ,riJioM (G?;) gnln-ijcfililT qlifanwoT (S5) 

» *nBl£.li9M Xsqlonli*! .5ilriT sriJ 


The master and chancellor found there was a mutual mis- 
take In the description of the property and it was decreed that the 
description of the property should be: 

"The West One Hundred Sixty (160) Feet measured on West 
31st Street, of that part lying North of Center of Ogden Avenue 
(except streets) of the East half (E 1/2) of the West half (W 1/2) 
of the North East Quarter (HE 1/4) of Section Thirty-two (32), Town- 
ship Thirty-nine (39) North, Range Thirteen (13), East of the Third 
Principal Meridian, " 

The property abuts 127 feet on the south side of West 31st 
street, an east and west street in Chicago, and extends south to 
Ogden avenue, a street running in a northeasterly and southwesterly 
direction; on the west by what is described on the plat as Clyde 
avenue and on the east by other property. There is evidence that 
Clyde avenue, so-called, between Ogden avenue and Vest 31st street 
had never been dedicated and was not a public street. It is 66 
feet wide, and the question in controversy is whether the property 
described in the trust deed covered the east 33 feet of Clyde 
avenue or whether the property conveyed should be measured from the 
east curb line of Clyde avenue if it were a street. 

Whether Clyde avenue at the place in question was a public 
street by virtue of user is not for us to decide in this case. The 
master found "the west line of the East Half of the Northeast 
Quarter of Section 32, Township 39 North, Range 13, is in the center 
of Clyde Avenue, and is used as a highway, although no formal 
dedication was made, Clyde Avenue is immediately west of the 
premises involved, " There is no contention but that the west line 
of the east half of the northeast quarter of the section is as 
found by the master. 

The original plat survey made of the property in 1925 was 
given to the person who drew the trust deed by Mr, Carlson, who at 
the time was president and principal stockholder of the Roofing 

Company, and was used in the preparation of the trust deed and 
therefore properly admitted in evidence. There was no need of 
calling the surveyor or making the other proof of the plat. 



9ilJ d-Ari^f l>99io9l) asw ;rjt JbnB x^i^lOTiq sriJ 1o noiJqlioaeib ©rid- nl 92to^ 

:9Cf £iIiiJoxi.a -^Jieqcsq ©rl^- lo xiol^'qiioas^ 

ctesft no X)8T:jj8Befii Jsa*? (OQI) ^*xi8 BexbuwH snO JeeW sriT" 

(5?\I W) lljaxl i^SQ'A' ©riJ lo (S;\I 3) IXsxi d-SBS er^ lo (R;?e»'i#g Jqsoxe) 
-- ■^:' ,(SS) ow;f-x*iInT nolitosE 'io (i'V 3^1) ie;rtjs«p sTajsa xld-ioK eri* lo 

" ^nAlfilisM iBqioniil 

03^ riJiroa 8f>n8^x9 -&«fi ,oasolriO nl iJ^ssiJa Jaew injs ;fase fl« ,J99'i#b 

Xli9*a9wrI*jJ0a Sns ^XigiifasefWion s nl gninnin: *99it8 a «©«fl9V£ nsfigO 

96^X0 8B it^Xq ^&i flo iscTiioaab al :ffiriw %d iBsv ed'i no tnol*09iiI) 

iBdo eonsJbiVQ al sisffT .Aj^isqciq "xeriJo xd tB&e eri? no btiB sirnsv.'^ 

Jsoi^B ?aXS *aev'/ baB 90n©vfl n&b'gO H99w#9cf ^ .gunsvis ©Jb^XO 

d9 ax :fl ,:t99id'8 oXXcTuq b Jon bbw bsua bs-^&olb^b asBd 'idvan b&A 

^d'-isqoiq 9ri# isif^axlw ai •^aigvoiJnoo nl nol^Baup 9riJ fcflB ,9X>Xw ^©©1 

9o-^X0 "io d-B9"t 55 ;f8s© ©rftf- 6©i9Voo f>s9f) Jauiit Btlf nX ftecfltoasf) 

9ri# moil b9tUBBBfs ©d JbXjJorfe fisYsvnoo 'Vi^isqoiq ©riJ 'i9rf;}'©rfw io ©ungvB 

.S-oa-xJa & B'xo ! JX IX eunevB sXt^XO "io ©niX Ctfnuo *aB9 

oXXduq B BBw noXd'ssup nx QOsXq erl:t ts sjufnevB 9f)'^XD lOfld-sriW 

9i£T .8SB0 aXrCd' nX ei>X09X) o^ bu tot d-on aX "-isbu Id ©u^-iXt xcf *99id'8 

d-BBSriJioK ©il* to IXbH itBBa 9x1* to anXX d-asvr ©rfa-* bttssot i9tBam 

ned-nso sriJ nX aX ,5X B-gnsiK ^rfd-ioS! 65 qXrfaflvoT ,S5 HoXd-osS Tro i©d"*SBXJp 

XBEncol on xlgi/ori^XB ,YBWf{sXii b bb Aeajj aX X)nB ,9wn©vA ©fi-^XD to 

Qxfd- to Jasw TjXsd'BXJ&QfflisX aX ©ungvA 9J5teXD ,©f)Bm 8bw floX*isoXi)©i> 

©nXX d-asw ©xid- d-Bxld- Jucf noXd-ngd^noo on aX 919x1? " ,f)©vXoviiX BsaXnatq 

aB aX floXd-Oda ©xfd' to le^iaup d'aBsxIition 9xfd' to tXsxl Jaa© 9x1* to 

,^©*aiffi^ ©ild" "^cf Jbnjjot 
saw 6SGX nX x^i^QOiq ©rid" to 9^Bfli yavioa dBXq XanX^Xio ©riT 
ds oxlw ,fioaXiBO .iM A£cf be^b d'atfid' srld' w9tX) oxlw xioaioq ©xld- od- ngvXg 
gnXtooH ©xld^ to is^Xortfood-B XaqXanXtq btm d'n9X)Xae'rq bbw ©ffiXd" edi 

bnB B'^gfi ^Buti 9iU to noXd-fliBqeiq ©rid- nX Bsajj 8bw Isna t^naqaioO 
to -bean on bbw ©laxiT ^eonacXve nX X)9d'd'X/nJb^ ^Xn9<[0T:q ©lotsasrld- 

.+ a Ti^r fi-i^ "tn '^nn'ra Teirf.-tft ftrf* TJntTf.fiai TO 'rfiVftVTtfB ©rfd^ 'finXXXBO 


The master also found "The parties made a mutual mistake 
in Inserting the legal description; their intention and purpose 
was to convey the parcel of property lying 127 feet east of that 
point, which would be the east curb line of Clyde Avenue"; that from 
the east curb line of Clyde avenue to the center of that avenue was 
33 feet. The master continues and finds, "The recital in the trust 
deed should be reformed to comport with the intention of the parties 
to read: 'The West One Hundred Sixty (160) feet measured on West 
31st Street,'" continuing with the description of the property the 
same as that found in the trust deed. The decree followed the 
master in this respect, 

Mrs, Carlson filed objections to the master's report in 
which she (among other objections) contended the master erred in 
holding "that it was the intention of the parties to convey 'the 
west 127 feet east of that point which would be the east curb line 
of Clyde avenue'"; that he erred in holding there was a mutual mis- 
take in describing the property; that he erred "in not finding that 
the west 127 feet" (being the property mortgaged in the trust deed 
in issue) commenced at its westerly boundary line which would be 
the prolongation of Clyde avenue. 

The record discloses that if the west boundary of the 
property was the middle of Clyde avenue as defendant contended in 
her objections and extended 127 feet east, the e#st line of the 
property would pass through a one-story brick building which was 
owned and occupied by the roofing company at the time. Of course 
this contention is absurd on its face. It is clear the roofing 
company intended to include this building in the mortgage. And in 
addition, the absurdity that this building was not intended to be 
conveyed by the mortgage appears from the description of the 
property in the trust deed. The trust deed conveys the property as 
hereinbefore quoted "Together with all buildings, improvements 
and appurtenances thereunto attached or belonging, Including all 


i&Ai to Jas9 *»9l VSI sniicl \iiB<ioi<i lo Isoiaq 9if* xevfloo oiT a«w 

fflo^^ Jiwii^ {"oufid'^A Q^X-EO ^o soil cfiuo *8B9 9X1* 9d- l>Iuow rfolxiw ,Jnloq 

aaw 9iifl9VJ3 cfad* lo isJxieo eri* o^t si/nevfl e*^XO lo enlJ. rf-s«9 ^Tsas eriJ 

ifajjiJ 9rf* fll I^^iosi 9rfT« .aBnIt hR& asjjfiWnoo -i«;r««ia cifT .Jtet 55 

saiJi-sq 9ii* "io noliTneJfii 9x£r rf^lw ^loqiaoo o* x>9miol&i 9tf Muoda fi99f) 

^ JasW fio fi9iL'aB9m ^eal (061) Y^^iS BsibfluH snO *aeW 8riT« :X«9i oi 

9riJ x^igqoiq 9ri* "io nol^qlioasJb 91IJ fl*lw sfliw«i*noo «',;t99t*8 *8l5 

9fi* c9%foIicl 991091) 9riT ,Jb99£) ttawi^T 9rl;r nl fmi/o^ i&iSA a* »afta 

.i^osqaen: airiit nl leS'aAB 

ni: Jioqsi 8»ie*8J8ffi 9jciJ o* 8r£oi;*09l,tfo ielil noaliAO ,3nM 

nl f>9ii9 iszfasffi 9xi* bfiha&^tioo (anoWosttfo '^tsrlifo anocja) »rfs doltbt 

9il:r' T£9vnoo o;t agl^iaq ©riiT lo no-WnsiTftl sriJ 8«w it JAdt" 8nii»Xoil 

enil cfiuo iB&B 9£i;r ed .5Xjjow doliiw Jnloq *BXf;r I0 ?a«9 ^Taal VSI taw 

-eiffl XB«;tu£n a bbw 9i9xf;r gnif^Xod ni fiai'is erf i^^i ;'"s«n©v« «nXO lo 

i^Ai '^tbtill Jofl nJi« 159119 Bd ^pAi utr-ssqoiq srf:? snldiioasD al niBi 

bBQb :f8i;i* 9d* n.t fi93J53*ioK xs^ieqoiq 9iid- snlwi) "cTs©^ VSI Jesw 9£i;t 

°"^ 9d ^Xl<ow rioXrfw snXX At-xAftnL'od aistasw •#! *s i)9Ofi9«0OO (•uaai nX 

♦oiLffisva Q&xLO lo floXd"«^ftoXoT:q arit 

''^' ni X.96fl9*noo ?nai>fl©^el) a^ ernisv* ©fi^XD lo elfci^lni exit sbw M^naqoiq 

9ilt 10 enXX rrase Bfit , t^st T2X fiatnetxe baa anoltoatdo i9xi 

8BW i:ioXjlv? ^ntbltisd jfolicf Aciota-ano « rfs«c«r{tr aa^q UXwcm Ajtisqoiq 

9811/00 10 «8nrit 9xlt ta Ttnsqffloo gnl'tooi erit ^cf fialqiiooo Saa l>6nwo 

anXlooi edi issXo aX tl .so&t b&I no Myada ai floXtn^tnoo aXxit 

fli X»nA .©sagtiom exit nX gnX^XXird aXrit eDuXoni ot 6«i>n9tni xxiaqmoo 

''' 9Cf ot bBbaeicti ton aaw 3fiXX.XXuo' alxlt taxit YtXX)ri«8cf« ©xlt ,noXtXf)f.B 

exit to noXtqXioagf. exit moil aifi9qqii 93«atiooi sxit x^ bBX&moo 

s« ^tieqoiq exit e^svnoo b^eb tamt exfT ,X>©9il> taint ©lit nX xtieqoiq 

atfismsvoiqsX ^ssfiXDXXud XXfl rftXw i©xite8oT« Detowp oioledflXaisxl 

XX5 anXJoxjIonX .'dflX-anoXecf 10 £>exiOiJtta otnuoieri* e90n«n©tiiK|«* bOB 

engines, boilers, vats, " etc. 

There might be some doubt as to whether there was a mis- 
take made in the description of the property because it describee 
the west 127 feet "except streets" which would exclude \iest Slst 
street, Ogden avenue and probably Clyde avenue* In view of the con- 
tention of Mrs, Carlson that the 127 feet began at the center line 
of Clyde avenue, we think the court was warranted in decreeing the 
127 feet commenced at the east curb line of Clyde avenue. But we 
are unable to agree that the trust deed should be reformed so as to 
provide that it conveyed the "west 160" feet beginning at the center 
of Clyde avenue. We think the parties did not intend to convey any 
part of Clyde avenue whether it was a public street or otherwise, 
but they did intend the trust deed should convey 127 feet beginning 
at the east curb line of Clyde avenue. 

In the original complaint no suggestion was made that the 
trust deed be reformed but the prayer was the ordinary one of fore- 
closure. In the amendment to the complaint a reformation of the 
trust deed was sought so that the property covered by the mortgage 
was the west 170 feet, etc. The master's report and the decree 
found the trust deed should be reformed so the property would be 
described as the west 160 feet and the record discloses plaintiff 
contended on the hearing that the mortgage covered the west 170 feet 
commencing at the center line of Clyde avenue, that is, complainant 
was claiming 10 feet more than the decree provided, which 10 feet 
apparently belonged at the time of the execution of the trust deed 
to the roofing company. 

While the question is not properly before us we are un- 
able to see what interest Mrs, Carlson has in the property. Her 
counsel testified "I am the attorney representing Anna F. Carlson, 
widow of Carl A. Carlson, principal stockholder of the Hawthorne 
Roofing Tile Company." And in his brief he says Carl A. Carlson, 
now deceased, was president and principal stockholder of the 
roofing company and "His widow, Anna F, Carlson, defendant herein, 

-elm & aaw etsdi 'xeriueriw oJ as d-cfwoB sffioa acf ^rf^jlffl sisriT 

-noo 9ri* to W9ly nl ♦©unevs 9J&Y-f!5 ^Icfsdo-xq ibjus ewfisvA nalJ^O ,;r 991*8 

Sri* Qnl99i©9£ nt betnatimj SB-'it *i«oo ©rid" iHlxl* ew ^swnsv* ©BitlO to 

sw *tfa ,»0n9VJ8 s^tlO to eitll cfiuo Jbbs 9x1* *a bsonemmoo *©9t VSI 

o* aja oa foiEiote'i ecf Jbluorfa J&eei) *«xn* »ri* *i»ri* esf^A o* sldsau sib 

isd-fiso 9x1* *js -galtint-ged *9el «OdX *asv» ©i!* J&9^dvnoo *i *axi* s^ilvoiq 

TtflB Ysvnoo o* bnB&al *on Jolf) S9J'.*iBq 9dt iniil^ eW ^sunevs ©li-^IO to 

,98lvrx©fl*o 10 *es*jt« oiXcTuq a saw *Jt lerfJsxfw ©wnsva 9b\10 lo *iBq 

aninnlascf crss'i VSI xqvroo blssotiR feeei> *8i;i* sd* iifi9*fli &16 Ysd* *wcf 

»9Wfl©vj» *j&^10 to sjiil cfiu© *r!'^" '>'^':^ *fi 

9£/* csiij sDBm 3BW noxJ3D,^wiJtJ ofi *nljaIqiDOO SlAai^tto ed* al 

~ortot to Sflo xiJBfiiMo 3d* 8«w letAiq erf* *iErd J&9«riots« aof |}»9£ tstii* 

9rf* to noi*a/Kr£ot9's a *ai:Alqinoo 9ri* o* *fJ9fflfifl9«« 9ii* nl ,»r£M80Io 

93*5'^*'SOffl 9X1* iccf I)9'iSvoo i£*'xe>qoiq ©il* *Ad* 08 Sxlgwoe saw f>«»A *8»i* 

99109* «ci* bn& dioqei i'i9*»«ir 9xlT «,e*e ,*e9t QTX *a«w 9x1* baw 

9cf feXircw -^stftsqoiq 9x1* 08 .DSffliotei ed JbXjJoxie l>»ef> *S0i* 9ri* bauet 

ttl*nlaXq esaoXoalB Bioosi ©xl* iiflA *e9t OdX *»efvf ©xl* a« fiadiioaaf) 

*99t O'TI *8©w Qxi* JD919V00 9s*S**io* ®^^ *Axi* ^nli&mi ©xi* no AsJbn9*noo 

*nBnI«Xqmoo ,8l tiaxi* ^9i;fl«T« ©Jb^cXO to 9atl i9*neo ©xl* *a ^lonsmmoo 

*9St OX xlolxfw ,£>©ijiToiq 99ie»i> 9Xi* xiaxI* ©iohi *9at OX -gaitttAlo a«w 

B99i) *8irx* oii* to nol*«09x© ©rf* to smti ad* *a fift^HoXstf XJC*fl©ifiqq* 

^'^flAqJBOO s^ltooi 9X1* o* 
-Ku 91A ©w 8« ©lotscf X-i^'s^^qO'^Q *G*J ^-^ n«i:*«©i/p 9xi* sXlxfW 

i©H ,^*n9qoiq ©xi* nt Bad xsobIiaO ^a-xM *S9i»*fil *BXf»r 99a ©* ©Xcf^ 

,ao«»IiAO ."^ AiixiA afil*fi®B 91^91 Y9n'so**A ©xi* aza I*^ Jb©iti:*8«* £9Bauoo 

©iiioxi*WAH ©xl* to i©fcXoiIio©*a iBqlonliq tfioal-saO .A X-xaO to wofilw 

^noaX-sAO .A X-xaO 9XA» ©xl taincf alri «1 *raA " »cfiijqiaoO sXiT snitooH 

©xl* to ief)Xoxlioo*8 XxaqXo«iiq bn& *n9i)la9iq saw ^fc9aA»o©.& won 

,ni9i?)il *nA^not9f> ^floaXixjO »^ annA ,wof>iw aXH* ba& xnaqtaoo gxiltooi 


la now the principal stockholder of the Hawthorne Roofing Tile 
Co." But In the decree It Is found that the "Hawthorne Roofing 
Tile Company, a corporation, was dissolved by order of the Superior 
court of Cook county upon the 14th day of July, A. D, 1933, " As- 
suming the corporation was properly dissolved, we are unable to see 
how Mrs. Carlson or anyone else could be a stockholder. 

For the reasons stated the decree of the Circuit court of 
Cook county is reversed as to the description of the property only. 
In all other respects it is affirmed^ Three-fourths of the costs 
in the trial court and in this court are taxed against Mrs. Carlson, 


McSurely, P,J,, and Matchett, J, concur. 

9llT afiltcofl sfliodJwjBH exit lo isbloiUoo^B lagiofiliq erf^ won tl 

^^isjbloittfoo;^® B ad" ^liiO-o ©ale siio^nfl t:c aobIibO .aiM wori 

-Jaoo 9fi* to ariJiwol-esiriT .JbemilttiB al tf^i e;fi>9q88i isri^o XIb al 
YT'4000 XOOO "^O TflUOD TIUOfilD EKT 10 •"^'" • "" 

ORGE CHRISftftft^ 






Plaintiff, George Christian, recovered a judgment 
against defendant, Peter Smirinotis, before a justice of the 
peace* Defendant appealed to the County court, The appeal 
was dismissed January 3, 1935* Afterward, March 17, I936, 
defendant filed a petition to reinstate the appeal, which was 
in the nature of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis » 
The County court overruled defendant's motion and an appeal 
was prosecuted to this court, (Case W09 39093«) ®e reversed 
the order of March 17, 19 36, and remanded the cause to the 
County court with directions to permit plaintiff to answer 
defendant's petition to vacate the order of January 3, 1935* 
and "for such further proceedings as are not inconsistent with 
this opinion,** Mien the cause was redocketed in the County 
court plaintiff filed an answer, March 4, I938, alleging various 
matters in reply to defendant's petition in the nature of a writ 
of error coram nobis . Thereafter, March 25, 1938, defendant filed 
a replication to plaintiff's answer, which the court evidently 
regarded as a motion to strife© the answer, and this motion was 
overruled by the court. Without hearing any evidence, however, 
the court entered an order reinstating the cause and setting it 
for trial, and from that order plaintiff prosecuted a second 
appeal. In our opinion affirming the order from which the second 
appeal was prosecuted (General No, 40378), we said that "i\ was 
clearly intended that the cause should proceed to hearing on the 
merits of the petition for a writ of error coram nobis and any 
answer thereto that might be filed by plaintiff," and in affirming 





.YTHIfOO :iau: 


'^' '^ 

■®^-- ^^-^'^f- .:j X-«'* 


XfisqqjB »dT ^i%si&o x^oi/qO aiiJ^ o;^ bdX^dqqfi ia&ba&I^Q t99BBq 

^dC^I ^\X iioiBM ^kxaKi&itA .^t^X ,£ xiaiOisL Jbeaalxnalf) bbw 

Bflw floldw ^Xssqqa ©fi^ ^^Bi&alen oS aolit^&i s bslll isLBbaQl^b 

f^zlcimB^ ^&%o o loiiB lo it%fi B 'iol aoIJlipn b to Biti^^ eri^ xiJ: 

Xiseqqa xib f)nfi Jttol;toaj e'd^xiaJtaelsb beXinisvo iiuoo x^rtooO wfT 

ftoeisvon tfW (.£^0^£ «oH ©SisO) ,d"UfOQ aJteW oi b&ivo9&oiq uew 

Bdi oj sexfidO sfW bebnsnsi ^hb ,^c^X ^\l doiau to i&bio edit 

^^£^1 ^£ xisiinBt "io lobmo ©riit ei&oav ocf nol^flisq a • ;^nBbn9lsb 

rld-Jtw :tn9jeisrtooni :fcui ©i;3 8a agixibe^aoiq •i&cLi'un doiss loV* ba*. 

X;tnifO0 end" ul lje^93icob©i a .aw ©bjjbo aricj- nerfs'; *' .riolniqo 8 1x1 J 

aifoXiflV 3fiXs9llB t8£^X »-^ xioiiiM ^isfwfiiiis as bsXX^ lllJ^nxjGXq ^ixios 

JIt^ s Io Btuisia 9di at aotit^ieq t^iuBMsl^b ocT xLq^^z al eiev^^tan 

fceXll &a^bae1ob n8£^X j(iS xioiaia ^-isJ-las^eilT , altf0g ifcBioo loiie Io 

XXinebive :tii/oo sxf;^ doJLrfw ^^misoM e*lllc^nXjsIq o,t nolJ^aolXqsi s 

e£w noJt^otu &.tn:f boB ^levrans ed'J soilnis oJ aol;^ois is sb b&bi&^BT. 

^i©T0wori ^soneblvs xoi; ^tised ivodiJ^H .d'oiroa «i£^ x«^ beXxfiisvo 

;tl snlJ^;t9e fcoB sex^ao sdcf SJoJ^-^^^^^^Jt^X^tt isb-io ixs bsiei^ae iiisoo odi 

bnooee a bf4sjo9aotq tJlialAlq i&bio i&di moil boa ^laJLii iol 

bnoosa 9d^ xiolrfw moil lobio sri;^ gnlfii-xllla xjolniqo luo nl .Xseqqfi 

8««r /I" ;tarid^ blse »ir ^(8\£0*' ♦oH XsnsnsO) bo^jjjosao'xq esw Xfioqqfi 

©lit no s^lLssil oi beeooiq bXxJoria eauao £i£l:t ;tj3iftf bsbasd-nl xI"JB9-Co 

XC£! fenu sic- on: sibioo icnie Io .lliw b iol nol:fl:f9q Qdi Io ad-liein 

aaifflil'rl6 nl bcue '^llWniBlq vd b»Ill erf ^d^la iMi oisi&dS lowana 



the order we Indicated that "plaintiff should he allowed to file 
an answer to the petition for a viTit in the nature of a writ of 
error coram nobis , *»^ and the parties should then proceed to a 
hearing before the court on the merits of the petition and answer," 

After the matter was redocketed in the County court for 
the second time, plaintiff on June 2, 1939, filed an amended answer 
to the petition in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis^ in 
which he covered, either by way of denial or admission, the various 
allegations in defendant's petition, but made one significant change 
in the averments relating to the dismissal of the appeal by the 
County court, i»e,, in his first answer George Christian, plain- 
tiff, had averred that "the defendant knew or should have imown 
that the appeal was dismissed January 3> 1935*'* ^^'Q indicated in 
one of our opinions that this averment was objectionable, and 
therefore when the cause was docketed in the County court the 
second time plaintiff in his amended answer averred that "the 
defendant at that term of the court knew and had ample means of 
knowing that his appeal was dismissed and that he, nevertheless, 
acquiesced in said final judgment of this court dismissing his 
appeal *»*»" Defendant, Peter Smirinotis, thereupon moved t« 
strike plaintiff's amended answer. The County court denied the 
motion, but without hearing any evidence entered an order allowing 
the petition of defendant to vacate the order entered January 3* 
1935* whereby the appeal of defendant from the judgment of the 
justice of the peace was dismissed, and setting the appeal to be 
tried on its merits, de novo , on September 17, 1939« 

Plaintiff has prosecuted the third appeal from this order 

upon the sole contention that defendant's motion to strike plainr- 
tiff's amended answer admitted all the averments well pleaded; that 
among them was the averment that "defendant at that term of the 
court knew and had ample means of knowing that his appeal was dis- 
missed and that he, nevertheless, acquiesced in said final judg- 

lo it'm o lo eisjij&fi Bdi at iliw s lol aoiJ^ii^sq ©xii o^ lewans aa 

s o;t besooiq xi«uict bJjioslR a&JtJ^-XBq sd;t fens *** t Slcfon flusioo ioiib 

".-^owanja fess aolitttq Bdi' lo a^'liaia atiJ go i'woo etii ?>io1&ti :^aliB&A 

^ t^icftag flbBn09 i<yine 1© ^l^or ;; 'lo w-U'j.iit wuj ..:i. nol^Wdq »df^ o;f 
sijoiiny 9di ^aol&etmbB 10 Xsxasife lo xsw y^ t©ii;t±e ,i>«ievoo ©xl xlolriw 

-fiJtisXq ^ital^sZixiO ©glow's iswaaa d^a1l'l siri ffl ^♦•♦Jfc ^iiJJOo x^A^o^ 

nwoni evsii bSjiodi lo sfaoat ^«LBfi«»l»fe sid;!^'* iadi fcoliets bar! ,^llct 

ill bei&oXbaX &ii ".^£^X ,£ ics^^^sl* b&BBhsjslb 8isw IssqqB ©il^ ;tBii;t 

bad ^elfisaolioQldo ««w iffl»j8T»v^ filxli &&A& axiolctlqo tvo lo ©no 

9d$ i'iMoo xi^tmoD ai£t;t ai b&ieAoob aww sgirss s/l;f asilvr ©nolsisrfi 

9£lif" d-sdw^ betisvs -xswaxia fcebnsEB alrf fll lll:talfllq sasl;^ bnooss 

1<» exi&9fii $iqms b£$rl btic wexcf cf'WDo sil:^ ^o m'rsd' ^scC^f ^il J-iXB&fxeleb 

^e&9Xsif£ti9V9n ^sd ^^dd' Las Jbeealficlf) sbw XissqqB Btsi iejii snlvrootf 

aJttl 3JtiaeiiKci£) d"ijjoo aid* lo ;tn«5sfcxTt Xaall ftl^a iii fcsoeslx/poB 

«}■ bsfom aoqj:;©i»ri^ ^sx^tanXiliflS t9^9^ ^d'ji&fcflal'sQ «,♦** Xaaqqa 

drii^ f>©ii2©& cf-sxfoo x^^mioO ©rlT ^leweea &©fcii©fflfiS E»lll:falsXq ©ailicfa 

gflXwoXlB isMo «£ ^8"i©^na 9oa^flv9 yj:ia sixiisari ctJtJorid'lw d^ifd ,xiolJ-ott 

^c "^i^aast 6©*S9Jn© lafcao esfct e;J-«osv oJ' d-fjsbaolsfe lo uoWlisq sri;}- 

saSJ^ lo (Jflsicgm^t odi fiioil ^fnisJbn^lefc lo ie^qqa 9ri;t x<J®''ter{w »^£?X 

•tf o^ Xj8©qqis Qdi gnXc^;t©8 iittii ^fceaeJLtaelfc esw ©OB»q arid' lo 9sl.t«if|; 

i.?£^l t'^-C i9<frd»«fqe8 fio ^ovpg eb ^tiliom 8;tX no belief 

ief>"io eifiJ" tsoil Xseciqjs b-^ijcl^ suit becJ-jE/oesoiq rhjS llIctfLtal^ 

-rUeXq &:£lr-J& oi aotSom at^rusfcnslsJb *fllJ^ aolSn^moo »Xo8 »ri:t noqtf 

d-flfl;!^ ji)Cl)B©Xq XX «w e^nstweVB »rfcl^ XIa b&iiisEb£ iwrnBaa beba^ms a '111^ 

-Qib SAW Isdqqfi aid iBtiS galworDi lo enissc; sXqcie bsii bsi& ^eucDl ;laxroo 
-S^x/t L^ifi bl&z at MoE&lwpoa ^ctaXeri^isVen »»rf d^sri* bna Jbsaaiia 

ment of this court dismissing his appeal ♦**, " and the court 
having denied defendant's motion to strike the amended answer, 
should have dismissed defendant's petition in the nature of a 
petition for a writ of error coram nobisj ^ instead of allowing it 
and setting the appeal down for hearing September 17, 1939, 

The averment of defendant's knowledge as contained in 
plaintiff's amended answer has no facts to support it; although 
.It is averred that defendant had ample means of knowing that his 
appeal was dismissed, and that he nevertheless acquiesced in the 
final judgment, no facts or circumstances are averred to support 
this conclusion; therefore, it must be considered as nothing more 
than a conclusion of the pleader and not such an allegation in a 
pleading as would be held to be admitted by the motion to strike. 

We have twice indicated our view of the procedure that 
this appeal should follow when redocketed in the County court, 
but the trial court and the parties seem to persist in placing 
some construction upon our mandate wiiich does violence to the 
clear language thereof. Our mandate on the second appeal reads: 
"It is considered that the order of May 10, 1938, be affirmed, 
in consequence of wMch plaintiff should be allowed to file an 
answer to the petition for a writ in the nature of a writ of 
error coram nobis, not inconsistent with the views expressed in 
the opinion of this court this day filed herein, and the parties 
should then proceed to a hearing before the Court on the merits of 
the petition and answer «" Plaintiff now having filed his amended 
answer, and the court having denied a motion to strike the same 
should set defendant's petition for a i/rit in the nature of a writ 
of error coram nobis and plaintiff's ans\?er thereto down for 

hearing to determine whether or not the petition should be allowed » 


Such/petition is the beginning ©f a new suit ( Mitchell v. King^ 

187 111. 4.52), in which new issues are made up on which there 
must be a finding and Judgment. 

Therefore the order of the County court from which this 

i'woo atW iJtts *\*** Jjs®qqa eld gnlaeijaialfc ^'iiroo aJtrid" lo SaQsa 
^law&or^ bsiuid^jii Ad^ ef3lJtti:;$'2 oo not^oia s*;^a£lux»l6)i) bellied SOirvAri 

• ?tCi tS'-t i«(SjB&d"<ia£ :^fU%{ied lol «wol3 X^eqcja sfi;}' inXiSse toe, 

&Ld iedi 3xiJr«Q£ci lo exii^exn Blqm& bad cfosibaeleb ;^juld' J^eiisvis 8l il 

QtH sl biioz&iSJ£>o& zaQlmiS'wvQa ed isiii has ^hBBZlauBXb 3£i^ JLseqqs 

iiocique oi bQiiava &%& &Biia&iasmo'ilo 'lo zioAl on «iaesq|l>iit XfiOll 

©•joffi sjiliiirQa SB beisIiXaaoo eci craiwi ^i ,9io1:©i»xld- ^aolaxiloftoo 2l4J 

£ ia± xioiusasllii aa doiiJ& ion tas 'isbaalq SiiJ^ lo aolasiloa :.*J 

.ftrflicta oJ iioi^ota eiii x^ bQiiiJBii& ©cf oi bl9d sd f^iuow aa ^ii 

d'eiU 0'iif£)9OOiq 9ilJ lo w»lv two i)»^**oitoi oi>iw^ pvjBd siiv 

^;tixjoo ^diUtoO ©jcW nl bsiBioob^'i. aedv wollol £>Xfforla Isoqqs QJUii 

9£ii oi »sux9lol7 ssob cld4;iiw e^^js^SisiB lu^o aoqu aolioini&aoo emoe 

ieJI«e7 Xfidqqfi licoose &di no e;tfil)xi£ffi tcirO ,lo$*x9id;^ e;g^xfsnsX laeLo 

^bBBi'ii'lla &4 ^^c^l »0I %a^ lo i^iijio ®di i^ii bei^btfUKfo bI il" 

jcls Bill oi b&nollA sd kluoii^ 'ilXiMl&lti doMfi lo «i»n9Dpoanoo ai 

lo ^I'xw ii lo snuiML -^iU al drjtw * ■"■'"* '-"fiitioq Bdi oi limnaB 

ai fiseesiQxs ew©±v ©xld- rfd-Jtw ^jaetfcienu^iix v-.ii ^alcfoa jg aiog ^oais 

9Bli%t^ 9£Li ba^ ,niei9j£l bsXll x^b -•itdi iTMos) sidi "io aolatqo sdi 

If ^^t'^^ f^^t^ "<^ ^-^^'9^ ^ft^ g'Tf??'^tf ia.t7.flif1 ft 9^ fcftaooia cexl;^ bXxJOiie 

b&ba^mi aid belli gfixvBd v/on llX^nisX*! *'«a£>vti5j^ ia^s floUi;?8a ea;t 

(MBise &jfU a3lXa;ta oj aoic^offi b £>©Jaiofc sKivdil iieoo add- fens ,i9waaB 

' ".-" '-0 oii«-;tai« 0jii;^ r' i iol,noi;tI;fs)q a'Jfj6l»ii©l9L i®B fclx/orie 

•I 01 nwoJb ocfs*i9xi3 isv.\;xj:-5 e'llXJ'aiisXq feaa aldo a i p ^B 'i pQ loiie lo 

••d" 5Xi;orie aol^lSsq @dj ioa 10 isdi®dw BalaiBi?>b ci giLtaafitri 

<, .V lU^do iiM ) ilv& w»a it lo ^^l^als&d mii el nol^l^sq\ddira 

©'iadcf ri&xxiw £to qju ebsas dx© ssifesl wsn rfoJulw ct ^(S^-^ .III \Bl 

.inmi^but, ba& jialball a ed ^eiflo 
zldi jcioliiw bioiI J'jjjoo -^cJ^iiUoD edd^ lio lebio odi siolsietfT 

appeal is prosecuted is reversed and the cause is remanded with 
directions that defendant's petition in the nature of a writ of 
error coram nobis and plaintiff's amended answer thereto be set 
down for hearing at an early date^ that pursuant to tlie hearing 
the court enter an order either allowing the petition or dismissing 
itj that in the event the court should order the petition to be 
allowed after a hearing, an appropriate order be entered to that 
effect, and that the order of dismissal of the appeal from the 
justice of the peace be vacated and the appeal tae set down for 
hearing on its merits de novo, under the prescribed practice 
governing the hearing of appeals from Justices of the peace < 


Scanlan aisd Sullivan^ JJ»^ concur. 

iee £>d o^t^9ii;i iswsxub baUiemsi ti*^J.l^al&l{ bnf. elJoa ttjaaoo loi^ce 

»cf oj fioiitJtd'eq ail;t tefyio blisoiis vtiiros »cd' d-usv© sdi eii jmH {il 

•sol £mob 'J9e acf IjssqfiB ©xld^ 6«« £>©:>■ .odsv avi sossq eiLi to eoli&sil 



IpOWIG, doing business as 
;3^e Cornelia Tavern, 


] 3ilI,A. 246 




February 21, 1939, Mansfield William Morgan filed in 
the Municipal court his statement of claim in tort against 
Joseph Janssen, sued as Joseph Ludwig, doing business as The 
Cornelia Tavern, and Sam Void, owner and lessor of the premises 
on which Janssen conducted a tavern. The statement of claim con- 
sisted of four counts and was predicated upon sections 14 and 15 
of Article VI of "An Act relating to alcoholic liquors" (pars* 
135 and I36, chap# 43, 111, Rev, Stats,, 1939)# commonly Isnown as 
the Dram Shop Aot» Count 1 was premised upon a violation of the 
dram shop act and sought to recover damages against Sam Void as 
owner of the premises, and Joseph Ludwig, as tenant and proprietor 
of the tavern. Count 2 sought damages against Ludwig, individually, 
based upon a charge of assault. Count 3 was directed against Ludwig, 
individually, and sought damages for assault and imprisonment, and 
count 4 was against Ludwig, individually, and sought damages for 
false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. 

No summons was originally served on Sam Void but process 
was had upon Ludwig, who failed to appear or interpose a defense 


^CLIOV iiA2 


€/ Jr ^ ^i^*' 


^8iil336 ^*io.t n; inBSiBisiz a±ri j 11/00 lisqloJLaxjM aiU' 

•riT 86 easnJtEi/cf aiiiol) ^§lwfci;J dqoaoL zb bsirs ,n»8&fi£L dqdsoL 

«0ai«»iq siict lo ao-3fI has lemio ^LIoV ffijsS iana j/insvsT slXsnioO 

-noo bIbXo to ;taeKe ;;ts sdl ,ni»vsJ^ b bs^^osMoc csaaiiat ifolrfw no 

^I 5cLs M ROoJtitiQi. Jioqif bwcfaojfcbsiq 2bw bOB eixuroo xtfol I0 6s^8i« 

• Eiaq) "aioupiX oxXoxiooXa od" shI^bXs^ ;foA nA" lo B"^ sXoXitiA to 

eii mosDL vlaoimoo ^(C£^I ^^c .vqH .XXI ^£-^ .qsrio ^d£X bna 5£X 

fl^ lo iioi^xiXolv ix jdoqju i)ealfflf)iq 2r,w X ^Im. *d-oA qoiiS urnia erl;^ 

e£ bXoV SBC- c^sajtBgB esjisfliafe isvoooi: od^ drigwoa Jbns ;tO£ qoda ssiLb 

i^feliqo'iq isn« J-fLSflsj^ as ^gift'bWwI riqeaot bas ^zasXednq arid" lo lexxwo 

^XLlBiiblvtbat ^siwbJJj d-anJLsaB eea^iEBi) cfdai/oa S d-mroO .aievjB:^ sxld- lo 

glwbi/J ctanies^ bs^tosaib a^jw £ dflifoO ♦cflx/.^caa lo sgijario s noqxr bM«(f 

biSii ^^nefiuioeliqal bos JXi/JsaaB 10I asgiimsb drlsijoa baB ^^xlLzublvlbnl 

lal asasaujb ^xlajjoa bafi ^xllssfhlvthat ^glwbx/J denlB3fi bbw * :tai;oo 

.floiduoeaoiq c-.L'oJLolX.-^jia bns in&fnaoi:liqml dfilal 

iasooiq iucf bXoV eusS ao bsvice -^IXvilBiio bbw eixoKcu/a oK 

•Eix»l£b s seoqieJnl to iJ33t, ' Il^l orfw ^s-t^'^t!''»I ncqu bjuf ««r 


and default was entered against him March 7, 1939. Two days 
later the cause was called for trial, and "the court having heard 
the evidence," as recited in the order. Judgment was entered against 
Janssen, sued as Ludwlg, for $500 « An alias summons was issued 
against Void and served April 3, 1939. Thereafter, April 26, 1939, 
he filed his appearance, demanded trial by Jury, and interposed a 
motion to strike the first count of the statement of claim on the 
ground that it did not state a cause of action. This motion was 
sustained by the court» 

May 29, 1939, Sam Void and Shane Void, hereinafter referred 
to as petitioners, filed a verified petition to vacate the Judg- 
ment theretofore, on March 7, 19 39* entered against Ludwig, in 
which they alleged that they were the owners of the property in 
question, which was improved \vith a building, a portion of which 
had been leased to Janssen for the sale of alcoholic liqiors and 
used by him for the operation of a tavernj that Morgan had thereto- 
fore filed his statement of claim in the Municipal court, February 
21, 1939> Joining Sam Void and Ludwig, doing business as The Cornelia 
Tavern, as defendantsi thsit summons was issued against both defend- 
ants, but was not served upon Void, who had no knowledge or infor- 
mation of the filing of the suit; that thereafter the bailiff of 
the Municipal court made return of summons, certifying th&t he had 
served same upon Janssen, sued as Joseph Ludialg; that Ludwig, or 
Janssen, filed no appearance and interposed no defense, and that 
default was therefore entered against him; that thereafter, without 
notice to Ludwig, plaintiff had Judgment against him, doing business 
as Cornelia Tavern, in the sua of $500 and costs j that subsequently 
Morgan caused an alias summons to issue against Sam Void, which to- 
gether with a statement of claim was served upon him April 3> 1939i 
that neither of the petitioners had any knowledge of the filing or 
pendency of the suit until April 3, 1939* and were unaware that 
any Judgment had been taken against Ludwig, until May 15, 19391 
that on the return day of the alias summons, April 26, 1939* Sam 

Jbosad sxiivferi i-woo ©iii" bfl£ ^I^-^"^-^ "f" "^^ ®^"^^ ^''^^ ''^^^"'■ 

l>»ea8i SBVv eiioaaawa S&11& oA .OO^i.; , .x/;bwJ as bsx/s ^n^aanBL 

B bsa©q'X9:trt:. "'■■ ''^f'' .'■^'-t:-^ h^hn-^-psoi ^^•ja^'iis&qq& S-W ft'- 111 ad 

8ri^ GO fflisX; - - -t*^ vjl^oai 

ssw floi:'— -: '"^^ fcisifoia 

■J l-.satsiam 

rloicivr lo aolSioq ij ^gfLti^J^' •■^' ^^' -^-i:^w t«olia©x/p 

feitfi aT[atpJ:I oiiaciooIjB lo -^l . . .....^.w... ,-- xi&atf fcari 

-o.-.Viiaild' fejtid £Lssioia i&rli {ai9v.. a9XjA'iBqp ^x.u .^.^ mid xd b9za 

X'iBSJid&% ,jiJJO0 laqlolmi'iL sdJ m. . xv. -^ ....-..--, i- - -^ • •^' ^"ir* -•-.•o'i 

-lolKX 'lo &3byIwofiaI o« bwii ojIw , / on a as Jud ,e^ii8 

•xo ^5Xrti)i.'*i ^i-isriJ tslv^MJ ilq©£i' ojijc ^iieasiiau Xicqij- aiaae bsvioe 

* '•I 

38(3tilaucf sci-i:oJ^ t*X^ ^eixissfi Jn©fa;|I)j;/t Lad 1\iJal&£q ^ik^bud o^ 9oUoa 

XUtnsjpBzdas, isdi jad'aoo bn» 00)?^ "io «U8 ©liJ iix ^n-x&vii'i s^llBaiol) za 

-cKf rfoiriw ^feloV ibjbS J-2Xii.i3ii ©xresl o;J anoaiawg S.&IL& im beaiSBo a&^io^ 

;^£^I ,£ Iliq-i aUii aoqjj i)ovi«a a.«w ffllfiXo lo .insioojjj-a £ d^iw leif^ag 

10 stiiXxl 9xiJ^ lo sabsXwooai >jcu5 £>sri aisnol^XJsq adJ^ lo teititiac &^i 

t^i Qiamaxw siew baa x^i^^ %i XliqA Xlcfxiu ctlxra sjrfct lo xaaefcneq 

l?£?X %^X \«M Xl^iu/ ,a±wi)i;JL^^a iisajs^ nsacf bisxl cfixscisbi/t ^v^us 


Void filed his appearance and jury demand, and procured an order 

from the court extending his time to plead for a period of ten 
days, and within that time filed his motion to strike the first 
count, which was allowed by the court; that the judgment against 
Ludwig, being in full force, Morgan, through his counsel, had 
stated that he intended to immediately enforce the judgment as 
a lien on petitioners' property. The petition asked that the 
judgment be vacated and a new trial granted, or in the alternative 
that the record be amended by striking therefrom the first count 
of the statement of claim, and reciting that the default jiidgment 
against Ludwig was premised on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th counts thereof* 
Thereafter Morgan's counsel moved to strike the foregoing petition 
and dismiss the same. The court allowed the motion, and Sam and 
Shane Void have prosecuted this appeal from that order* 

The principal question involved is whether petitioners, 
who are not parties to the Judgment but who claim to have an 
interest therein by reason of the fact that the judgment constitutes 
a lien upon their property, have a right to complain* They cite 
several decisions, including Green v. HutsonvJlle Township gjgfe 
School District^ 356 111. 216; In re Georg e Burdick. 162 111* 48} 
GoodnouEh v. Shepuard . 28 111. 81, and others to support their 
position. In the Green case complainants, as taxpayers^ of a 
school district, filed their bill in equity against the board of 
education, county treasurer and others to enjoin payment of certain 
judgments that had been obtained by third parties against the 
district. The school board had authorized the construction of a 
school house at a cost in excess of the constitutional limitation* 
The building was erected and thereafter certain creditors filed 
suits in the Circuit court, in each ©f which the board of education 
entered its appearance and confessed judgment. Subsequently the 
board, by an election, authorized the district to issue its bonds 
for the purpose of paying these Judgments, These bonds were issued 

^T.-ix vrj :^>'.. jtoiitoiar air: - •''^'- ■-miit :$sitl) nirictlw i)ni3 ,3Xsfc 

sv±d"B£n9cfX« ">t^J lil -lo ^ib©;J-iii3*i:: i.;i'xj '.^©n b bug I^^bo^v JMf ^asm^bul 
im/00 *8^i'l srij coTleisirfd' ^atitt •-■ ' 0^9^* erf bTioost &ti& *«il> 

tofi flis@; IsHB ^flTolctoffi erf;t feswoIXri ^rtcfoo arfiP ,9«ds8 -sil^ aeJtffielfc *aB 
« 191.10 iSrBd.i lao'il XssKjo ' ' -^sjl-irosaoTQ svisif f?XdV anuixie 
,8!-i9!noi:J"XJ'3q n©ii;f9flw sX bftvXovnl aoljseji/p XjsqXaaliq sdT 

ns *Vi«{ o;5 c'i/jXo orf;: a&Jutisq *oa »is erfw 

i®;t«^l:t8no» d'««»Ms)3jJt. »«i* J^sit. id n±eisx?:f J'3 9i®;fnX 

jSa£g_<;: ■ -^liJitJpa^^- ,..>:,a&g;tO ^^itlfrnXoul ^enoleXosIi XsTWTBt 

•xlsiEf* ^^©qq; ■ :3ri:to fons ^18 .XXI 8S .In^ QQ^iiS . v dsusetLbooD 

a lQ ^sits-^sqxK^ es ^a^fli3sXBXq«»» eeeo «»»:tO ©a^ fcl .itol^Xaoq 

t© bnaod sfW ^siLXuga X^Xi^p® a-t XX±<f 'iXexli beXtl ^ic:t'li^lt Xoorioe 

B lo ooXcr©Jtn[;Seiioo sffS" fewsXtOili^L'K fcaii biaocf Xooiloe »ifx ^ioitisib 

r oti ,^i Imli XjsKoi^tw^icfaxxo© stftt lo eaeoxs ni :J&od s ;t3 sewori Xoorioe 

bf/'ltl eiod-lbsrsio «1«?'t:©© i»^lj6©ieilt Ijca b&;t&©ie ?,sw j:ii±fjXXJ^d oilt 

KolJ-aoube ^o t-mod ©rid' xiciriw 1« lisa© ixi: ^J^1«©o i'li/oilO sd:^ al a^Xf/e 

«l)Ho4 a^t »ifS8i- o^ .tsX^^^elfc edii' bdsX^edcrtv ^xiol;:^©©!* ru» T^cf ^bTso<f 
i)e4J&,«X »icw cfeflocf aasfll .ac^n&its&tit oss'itt aaJt^sq lo ecoqitfliv tti;i lol 


and sold. Defendants* demurrer to the bill was .sustained under the 
contention that these judgments could not be attacked collaterally. 
The Supreme court reversed the order, however, saying (at pp. 221- 
222) that regardless of the general rule a Judgment cannot be 
collaterally attacked, and is conclusive between the parties "there 
is a further rule which has been repeatedly sustained in this court, 
and, so far as we know, in all other courts, *** tliiat whenever a 
judgment is procured through fraud and collusion for tht2 purpose of 
defrauding some third person, such third person may show collaterally 
the fraud and collusion by which the judgment was obtained and escape 
the burdens and injuries thus thi-ust upon him," 

In Goodnough v. Shepp&rd. 28 111, 81, the latter brought a 
bill praying for an injunction to restrain defendants from executing 
a writ for possession of real estate, vhich showed that Sheppard 
had purchased the property, that a deed had been delivered to him, 
and that he took possession and lived on the premises until the 
filing of the bill. It was alleged that Sheppard was not a party 
to the suit, and that he purchased the property in ^ood faith. 
Defendants claimed title thereto by virtue of a deed from a second 
lin'^ of alleged owners, but Sheppard contended that he ianew of no 
incximbrance on the property and that Reynolds, from whom he had 
purchased it, had the absolute title thereto. Defendants' demurrer 
was overruled and the injunction was made perpetual. In commenting 
on these circumstances, the Supreme court said that the case was se 
palpable as to make it impossible to reason upon it; that it was a 
plain case of an attempt, by process of law against one party t© 
subject another party and a stranger, to the inconvenience of being 
turned out of the possession of property which he lawfully owned, 
without any judgment or process against himj; tliat a bare statement 
of the case showed its injustice, the propriety of the interposition 

of the court to stop the proceeding, and that the bill showed such 

.vXIsiSv :J"j}"jS »4 ;ton fcXijac p.3amt:.-^Lii5l ssatij JariO" ncxdrisitixoo 

. Iiiimt9:ji »flj' lo ae9Xf)iJB39t ia^ (SSS 

s isvansnv . 3iUo XXs at ,wofl>t sw e£ ^ubI oa ^bns 

lo 93oq-'. oais ijjjfiil rfsi^oiiLt bsiirooiq 2i tfisa^but 

ijXXBa9;tfiXXoo .von- ^rioeisq fiiirid etp.oz •galbuBtlQb 

sqsoa© bns bsilJLeo jaBts^ts / Xtf BolsirXXo© fins feifBtl sdi 

".iti.L I'iij aeXix/tai fJHB sneb*w6 9tiS 

gixl^^jijoexs iiToil e^iiBfjii&'j-.eii ala- iicau'inl as io1 anXx/eiq XXXcf 

fiuaqqsjril iioiaesaaoq lol J-lTir £ 

,iL£ri o^ bQi&vJLIet , ^di beaario'ijji; i>«x: 

S!ri3^ XiJnxj aaels^ic, idasesoq ioo;^ ©ri iad^f bns 

Xi'^:'i<l s don a.<:Vvr b*t&qq,&i: begeXXi ...IXcf sri^ lo aniXil 

9d3^t&'l srij £)©aj5rionjaq ed :i.%di fctrts ^c-Xjjs ariJ o:^ 

aa lo ^©ici ari d"3d;t jiisJbnoJ'noo btt^qqaifS ixxcf ^air^nvr© feegoXIa Tto "^aiX 

leiixsmeb ^ BinBba9l&Q. .ojsrteri:? sXd-Xct o^i/Xoads ©xW 5&d ^Ji: fceearforLcrq 

3at;ffl©iia«iOo nl . liSi/tsq'iaq efcaia ssw ixoid'OitctaX ^^^ fie* fe^Xirt'ievo bbw 

•e 8BW easo sriJ- cf^-ilJ- £)1bs J'isjoo ? edi ^asonijj'aajifoilo swsprfd^ no 

A e£W ;tX d■Bil:^ \it floqi* aoaaoi oi sXcfXaaoqeii il saLss o^ sb aXdaqXaq 

•^ X;fii»q €>ao Jaai^sB ^ ^:^qmeiiQ a& lo ©a bo alftXq 

^bestao xXX/jIwbX sxi ilolriw -^ccfisqo'iq lo noiaaeaaoq ©rfi lo :tj;ro baatsi^ 
;fxi9asd"s^s e-uscF a ^tsrlcf {SLtrf J'a/ilBgjs aseoo'iq 10 d-noiaaiJi/t "KflA d'XfOifcfXw 

floWXsoq-ied-nl ©il:t lo t*&±iqoiq '»nJ- ^f-'»l.+?ff;r».t sj-i fcswoile saao Bd& lo 

equities as to entitle complainant to the remedy granted. 

In the Btxrdlck case, 162 111, 48, the court announced 
the doctrine that persons making application to set aside a judg- 
ment after the end of the term must either be a party thereto or 
in privity with such party, or he possessed of rights or equities 
which are directly and injuriously affected by the Judgment, 

V/e have examined the other cases cited by petitioners, 
but they are severally to the effect that where fraud or collusion 
was exercised between plaintiff and defendant the court allowed the 
interposition of strangers to the Judgment whose rights had been 
seriously affected thereby. In the case at bar there is no charge 
or allegation of fraud or collusion and therefore in our opinion 
these cases are not applicable. Petitioners proceeded in the 
Municipal court upon the tlieory that the court had general equitable 
Jurisdiction to set aside its own Judgments after term. They rely 
upon par, 376, sec, 21, chap, 37» 111. Rev. Stats,, 1939» which 
reads 8 '♦That there shall be no stated terms of the Municipal court, 
but said court shall always be open for the transaction of business. 
Every Judgment, order or decree of said court, final in its nature 
shall be subject to be vacated, set aside or modified in the same 
manner and to the same extent as a Judgment, order or decree of a 
Circuit court during the term at which the same was rendered in such 
Circuit court, provided a motion to vacate, set aside or modify 
the same be entered in said Municipal court within 30 days after 
the entry of such Judgment, order or decree. If no motion to 
vacate, set aside or modify any such Judgment, order or decree shall 
be entered within 30 days after the entry of such Judgment, order or 
decree, the same shall not be vacated, set aside or modified, excepting 
upon appeal, or writ of error, or by a bill in equity, or by a petition 
to said Municipal court setting forth grounds for vacating, setting 

aside or modifying the same, which would be sufficient to cause the 
same to be vacated, set aside or modified by a bill in equity; 

beoanotWB &ivoo &di ,8> .III Sdl ^oesa :foi;£>iEfg sd^ jttl 

10 oi&ied^ x^iisq B @<i ledtile cfax/m ^aTtsi" ari^ lo fine »jrf^ as^tlB cfff^a 

asJtJiifps 10 ei^ff^- aa983o<i ©c^ -lo ,^^i3q dans d^Jtw x^-t'^i'^Q -tt^ 

.drisaisbut arid- "Hjcf bscfoslls -^lafloliiJtixl ftfle x-E^-i^finlft sib dolilw 

^eisnold^l.teq x^ bsi-to ssaeo isilcfo sri:.^ beniaiszs »v»xl sW 

riolExrll ' c, ■ofiw j-jsiict ;ta©l"; .J- xXIsi^vfie sis tsrW" ;tifcf 

.btI ad^ilali oaoff- tnemj^N. .v a^egjUsiJe lo floxd'iaoq'iei'nl 

sgisrio on si eierf-t i;;; dcT nl .Tjcfsisxfj' bed-oslls 't-I's^o-tisa 

aotai loloioi reieiiXXoo io I>jjbi1 lo aoti&'^Qlla no 

erii jtti flilfeseootq sii^noi . ^isoliqqB :}"on s-se aseBt) 989^1' 

Yl«i "^f^ . tn^'^^M' 2 oct aol^olbaliirt 

xioldw ^^C^X ^.^:fB;i , .... ^V£ .qari:.' ^I:. ,09a ^d\£ , nsq floq» 

5J"i£;oo lidqloXiuafd «wi* t6 elferre't ft'^^sifs on sdf XXsda Qi&dS ;t.9jEi!P «8bB»i 

.aaenisud lo Holcfoaaxiai _ axswXiS lltids ittsoo blBZ Svd 

sisjisa eSl ai. Isall ^itisjoo *Jl.i:e "jio -^-DToeb io isbio ^J^rtdicsfczft >ri9va 

^'rit.?. odd- .ntl 6 "5 f*!: bom to efci ^ j -^o.riv f.c oj to-^{,dv& ed XXsria 

Kse &d:$ o& baa t^aoMa 
iias.r. lit boiQba&i :9J 3i'i gxiliBb iitioo tlvoitO 

\;1i;:0i' 10 f^fclg.^ , ^ . .. ..J. blvonq ^Jix/oo ^IxfOiiO 

lecJ-lG sxab Qi aliiUh: i'woo XsqioXcuM hlBB al bei»^a9 ®d scisa sd^ 

oi aotiom on . _ . eiociL ••fo t'^Fj-to ^;;,??DraP'xrr douz lo x'^^'Os ®d^ 

XXisjtie 99id9fc to isfcio ^^n^fltsfc/ _. ., sfclae j-oa ^»;fBOBV 

•xo leb'io ^Sdsiss^biil rioxis lo -^i: x-^b 0£ xi±ri3-iw beietne ed 

il^qdox© ^bvlllbots io obt&B i^" „on XXaxie »at6e 9rf:t ,»»n99fi 

ylilS&q & Yd IO ^•\£^lup9 ill I-^^- ,. .^ ^ ..jiis) lo SItw tto ^Xseqqa jxoqjj 

Snl;t;t9e ^^ci- • '' ^■"' -^^^"^ -;->"; '^••^•- ■H'-.'o-; -..-^r- '-:^^o t-rroe Xaqioirufll Al«e o;f 

9ri^ sei/BO o:? Jn!^lo±:"if:£ ic .oii-'ov; iioiii,. 401:1^2 axU afll^lJtbofli no eblza 
{X^lUi.s KX XXld js yd bf'lllhojs 10 ebxsw ;t9a ^fced-sosv 9d oc^ 9fli£8 

Provided, however, that all errors in fact in the proceedings in 
such case, which might have been corrected at common law by the 
writ of error coram nobis may be corrected by motion or the judg- 
ment may be set aside, in the manner provided by law for similar 
cases in the Circuit Courts." Decisions interpreting this statute 
have gone no further than to hold that the act "manifestly con- 
templates conferring on such court only such power as a court of 
equity could exercise in a similar case under analogous proceedings, 
at least so far as they afford an opportunity for the formation of 
issues and a hearing thereon." ( Imbrie v. Bear. 230 111. App. 1^5*) 
Applying this rule, the inquiry arises whether petitioners may invoke 
the powers of a court of equity to vacate or modify the judgment* 
Since in our view strangers to a judgment, though their interest 
may be affected thereby, cannot in equity or law attack the sajie 
unless fraud and collusion exist between the judgment creditor and 
the judgment debtor, or unless some special circumstances, which 
are not present in this case, would move a court of equity to remedy 
a palpable wrong, it would follow that this is not the kind of case 
where a court of equity would lend its hand to set aside the judg- 
ment, especially after the expiration of the term, and therefore 
we are constrained to hold that the Municipal court had no such 

One of the essential elements of a petition seeking to 
set aside a judgment after the expiration of the term is the 
allegation of a meritorious defense. Petitioners make no such 
allegation and for aught that appears of record we oust assume that 
no good defense existed to Morgan's claim« 

It is argued, of course, that count 1 having been held 
defective, the judgment should be modified so as to make it appli- 
cable only to counts 2, 3 and 4, It was conceded by Morgan's counsel 
qi oral argument that count 1 was inartificially drawn, but under 
the practice in the ICcmicipal court a fourth class tort case is made 
by the evidence and not by the pleadings. The judgment in this 

®dd^ \;<^ wbI flooifflo. Joenioc jilgJta rioldw ^suso jdoiie 

-3i>ift, Sfi-"^ "^c) no±:fois xd bB:toBiioo eicfoct otBido loii© lo iJtiw 

Qtni&ip. ztdJ ^aliBiq.t'iSnt ^n.oiitc9(i ",2d-'UfO0 itsjoilO edi at aeeso 

-«oo YX^<^5'3:±rrr;r" 'Ion ocl- aml:^ mdi^iul cw aflog ©vad 

lo iisjo :iroc rioL-e no guiinslfloo sQialqaiei 

lo CLoti .isiio'i 91-f.t ':io'i Y^^-ti^'-ioc _ rio'ilij x$^di aa ib1 os d^SBal iB 

L«^^i *. * „ f . - . sxTtclffll) ".no^-ieiut gxLtrLsexi s baa zBU&iit 

- \. _.., a f£X Sosio&o ^xfiB*iedS bsioQ^lta »cf -^^h 

■,,'.-i n^etf :}-bj:-ho rro :•< f-rfor. foua buail aeslou 

' v^^' ^ ..;^ ..^_o ..^ .,..:. .±^ ioa B1& 

dttiiz on 9>{8fii cj-ric^noi:""' "■" .©enr-t;.!' -jjox-, 

'fisgioM o;J^ t " 

-xXqqs il siism oc^ zb oa faalllJboD 9d fclxrc, 

lobaa iuf! ^cm.iib xlSjitorit:trL&£il . 
sbem Bt 9&&0 ^loi aa^Io d^'WQ'l b itiwotj .. 

■ — •"- • -"IB SV 

^ TSwoq 

i.oiBb boo% ca 

. ^lao eldao 

tlOUUa'IB XbIO flD 

: Oiriq ari;t 


case recites that the court "having heard the evidence," finds 
in favor of the plaintiff and enters judgment accordingly. No 
transcript of proceedings is brought before us, and we must there- 
fore indulge every presumption in favor of the validity of the 
judgment. This is fundamental in the law and has been consistently 
adhered to by the decisions in this state, ( Bush v. Hansop, ,^ 70 HI* 
480 ») Counsel for the respective parties devote space in their 
briefs to the question whether or not petitioners were in the exer- 
cise of diligence in filing their petition, but in view of our con- 
clusion on the controlling points in the case, we think it unnecessary 
to discuss this question. 

It is apparent from the petition that the Voids had leased 
the premises to Janssen for the purpose ©f operating a tavern, and 
they were charged with knowledge of the consequences resulting from 
the violation of the dram shop act. The judgment against Janssen 
is valid, and no convincing showing is made as to why it should be 
vacated or that the court had jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, 
the order of the Municipal court sustaining Morgan's motion to strilce 
the petition and dismissing same is affirmed, 


Iranian and Sullivan, JJ*, concur ji. 

-- .. ... i, ...-.„— ;- 'lovii*^ ni aoj:;t<:j;fia:;a9iq x^^^® »8ljj£ial aa«»l 

vX,;r:.; ... fiaxjoD na»cf 3is*: „. _„ „.. ^j.iaesii^hiUi't el Ri;dT .;}n9©aftf;t 

,b'3mtt'llB ax sisae snxasiaElJB baa aolil^'i^ actf 

lX)JJQtm4f, RAY, 

lalt will and/tu 

Plaintiffs sued defendants for bm alleged breach of 
their agreement under a 20-year lease to ;@ep the leased 
premises, consisting of 16 flats and 5 stores, located in 
Ciiicago, in good condition and repair and upon the terainatlon 
of the leas© to yield them up in good condition, loss by fire 
and ordinary wear excepted, and also to pay all taxes and special 
assessments levied on the demised properties during the period 
of the lease. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs 
of $4,500, which included $1,74.1.93 for damages to the property 
and the balance for taxes, a special assessment and interest. 
Defendants appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict. 

The demised premises, located at the northwest corner 
of Van Buren street and Racine avenue, Chicago, were leased 
principally for saloon purposes, but Included some additional 
stores and apartments. In preprohibition days a saloon was 
operated in the main uuilding, which was estimated by the manager 
for plaintiff to be 40 or 50 years old at the termination of the 
lease, Tiie lease commenced May 1, I9II, and terminated April 30, 
1931. It was a long printed document with a typewritten rider 
attached thereto, which contained the usual provision for replace- 
ment of all broken glass, fixtures, etc., and to Keep the premises 
in good repair; to clean the vaults and alleys in accordance with 
the ordinances and the direction of public officersj to remove the 
snovr' and ice from the roof; and upon termination of the lease to 
yield up the premises "in good condition, loss by fire and ordinary 



■ ;"adcf BXsl^ oS easel ^di to 
^d'xeqo'i.; : . iiabaltail Aoiitff ^QQ^^H to 

b93£«J- ■'' ,u;i,..-V-U;v; jC^tTt-'J'/-;:- action. . .OISB i^eii^ flSOWo Ujijv "io 

'-'rivt "io fifji^taiJlmieJ :•' ■ - ;• .LaUUIq rrol 

'C. IliqA bBiBalmisJ una .. . . ;:3;:s£t^;aauo &u&sl »i1T ««aB9l 

E9ai£i»iq ©rij q9»>^ oj fcas ^,3:t© »89'xxf;J-jt.ri »g8M3 a&xoid lis to ^flan 

rijlw soajARioooin sii a'^eiljs Ma a^Iusv &Li& o&^Ig oi i'liBq^^n feooj at 

t:'rii 91'Ofljoi o;t ja^Qoillo ollduq lo fio.t:fo»TclJb sxl3' baa asoiiBnlfeio en'J 

f!C&T excepted." Paragraph 13 of the rider contained a provision 
with respect to the payment of taxes, under which the lessees agreed 
to "pay all taxes and special assessments levied on above described 
premises from May 1, I9II, to April 30, I93I." 

The gravamen of the complaint is the alleged failure of 
defendants to yield up the premises at the termination of the lease 
"in good condition, loss by fire and ordinary wear excepted," and 
for a special assessment and general taxes for the year I93O, which 
were alleged to have been levied prior to April 30, I93I, 

The evidence with reference to the condition of the 
premises at the termination of the lease consisted of photographs 
and the testimony of witnesses who had personally inspected the 
premises both prior to and at the termination of the lease. The 
record is replete with evidence showing that the premises were left 
in a dilapidated condition that is difficult to describe or believe* 
There was not only filth and disrepair from neglect, but an obvious 
wrecking of the property by vandals, and deliberate waste. In a 
large number of the apartments the plumbing fixtures and pipes were 
'missing, together with parts of the flooring, numerous doors were 
gone, many windows bro^n, and much of the window sash and plaster 
had disappeared, the rear porches of the biiildings were rotten and 
shaky, the roofs leaked, the gutters were gone, stair rails and 
some of the stairs were missingi ashes, tin cans and rubbish several 
feet deep covered one of the large basements, and the yard was 
littered with waste* 

6, W. Kltwer, an architect, testified as to the cost of 
repairing and replacing this damage. His estimate did not contemplate 
the cost of putting the building in first class condition, but covered 
only specific repairs to replace the damage that had been done by the 
removal of material and the cost of making the porches safe, to re- 
place doors that were gone, fix vdndov^s, repair the plaster and to 
make the place generally livable, without any estimate for decoratin - 

&«©a3B ssstesi ©il;J doixiv/ I'^bsw ^ssxa^ "io tnflisr^s.l airii' q9 ^oeqee^ iO"lw 

s os^f <59cj: Niii3fli:^T:o bna sit'X xd aaol ^x.>..-.wifiaoo 0003 ill** 

.-.', .,.j^ flolcfiMoo adit o^ ©onsTSrlei dd^lw ©aas&lv© «>rfT 
9^ fcs^osqefll ^IXi3noan«q £?s«i orfw awsss^iiti^' I0 yXiomtia,eS »jtW bus 

.sv9lle«i rro »tfltGa9£> o# tlmtiltlb ai ^siid^ Hoiiifcaoo f>»;J.elJi:q.sXlfe b nl 

eiroivefo 13.6 cfXftf ^:^o©I§©a rao^l ii.sq9«!t8lb fett« riJ-Il"! s.Sjio ion e^w e^WiT 

a rsl .Sktajsw s:tBiedlIsf:- S^nr, ^Elsbasv ycf x^i9qoiq ed:t lo tiaiaCoaiw 

S19W aoqXq £>aB esiirtjcll ^±dc«/Xq edS acJ'JieitKJ'rtsqs ari:?^ lo ledaujn sgiaX 

©law feioon gjfoi©iiarn ^sfllnooX'A ?itii Jo scfisq iicfxw i0jri;te>3Oj ,5{nlaalia 

leJasXq Snas ila«ia vrofesXw sd^ to rioi/m jbna tnafioicf a«o£iaiir xiaaai ^aaoa 

£>fis fla:Jdoi si&fi sanlfeXiXKf ©r ioioq isai &tii ^hsizsqqstlb fisxf 

J!tfijs aXluBrt ^x&;fa ^axios ^"^^o^^ BisJd-irs erict ,J&»2Ls©X altooi edd^ ,ip£fidE 

X^jysvaa rieXdcfxji bm: aneo jaJ:? ^asrfau jarcX-alfii 9iew eiis^a ad^J^ lo siaoa 

2SW fris-^ sri;t fitCLs ^&ia&moe.B<i sgisX srld lo ©so 5©ievoo qssb ^sol 

♦ ftd'csw il^tlw &9'i»i;tlX 

lo J^aoo sxl^ od es bsillJBS^f jjfoo;J'ttlois njs ,i@vr*X3 •?' ,0 

i^sXqffifiKtfloo Jcjfi folft 9S&ml:iiae alH .sgsiaab bMJ setiosXqsn ban axijtalsqet 

>9isvoo Ji?d ^jdoljiijooo aajaXo ^8^:11 «1 axflbXiifO adJ snlJ^fuq lo iaoo aii^ 

ail»f yd 6fioi rtsscf jbjsri i^jaric^ sgBiost) Qd:t ©oaXqan oJ e^lsqei olliosqa -^lao 

-oi Oxf ^alcB sedoioq sdJ fittl^fjaa! lo ^taoo 9[ii fai*; Xb1t[9^3B lo Xavoasi 

0i f)nB laiteaXq Dri;t 'ilfiqei ^svobni:./ xil t&nos oisnv +,'5rlJ- aicob ©oaXq 


painting or papering. The figures he gave were considerably in 
excess of the amount of $1,741»93» which th© jury fixed as 
damages for repairs. No effort was made by defendants to prore 
that the damage to the property was any different than that 
disclosed by plaintiffs' evidence, or that such damage was 
incident to any reasonable use and occupation of the premises. 
The defenses interposed were rather teclmical and dealt principally 
with the quantum of proof required to be presented by plaintiffs to 
sustain the small amount awarded by tiie jury. Defendants feel 
aggrieved because the court permitted Hewer to testify as to the 
amount of damage for failure to repair, without giving any facts 
as to the quantity of either labor or material, and they also coat- 
plain because the court permitted A, H, Smith, manager of the 
building for plaintiffs, to testify over their objection, which 
was predicated upon his disqualification by section 2 of the 
Evidence act (chap. 51# Ill» Sev, Stats,, 1939, Vs-^» 2.) Klewer 
and Smith made a detailed inspection of the premises, and in the 
presence of lessees' representative prepared a detailed list of the 
repairs required. Defendants' representative was not produced 
as a 7/itness upon the hearing. The record discloses that on the 
occasion of this inspection, in 1930, the conditions of the building 
were substantially identical vdth those existing at the expiration 
of the lease, no repair \¥ork irtatever liaving been done in the 
interim. The contention of defendants that before the item of 
$1,741,93 can be allowed for damages it was necessary that Klewer, 
who was an architect of long experience, sliould break up his esti- 
mates for various items of repair down to the exact number and 
kind of boards, plaster, pipe and other materials required in the 
repair of this dilapidated building, We consider this contention 
untenable, A mere glance at the numerous photographs introduced 
in evidence, when taken together ^vith the undisputed facts of the 
case, would convince any fair mind that this building was not only 
neglected and turned over to lessors at the termination of the 

XXXsqJt&aiiq ilBt^b bus Leoiiitios-^ 

..::'i®qotq add o;^ 'i>:^BSLsib odi iBSii 

3jJso»<f nJLalq 

, Ili^xitAXq lol i^tblUid 
r Mi. aoqij b^&olbeiq saw 


iioeqani beXJ:?" • .jn ri;tXiB£ Mb 

bns 'isdisaaa ciojxe sri^ ocJ- mrofo TfXsq3«i 1© sawcfi siJoXiBv lol 8 9;taat 

arf:^ nl bsiittspBi nlnt^mSssn n^ir^.&o bttB ^iq ,i©i-ssXq ^^.bisnod lo £ini3{ 

itoiint'CTxioD aJbcfi -labisiaioc ^..uifjXxi/cf fc9:rsMqAXJtf) airlt lo ilsqert 

£)et3/rf)0'xd-ni 3^qBi3 o<^03tlq ajeoii5isj;;ii .. o soajsXa ©letn A , ©Xtfjens^nx; 

®fi:t lo aifojsl bB&tjrifitbtit' mi /r^ T-v ■i^>rf.i-90j ii«)3(iaJ- ir®rfw ^sonofiXve aX 

\:Xiio tofi 36W 3KXI>Xf/;<i c.i^. ^::iai^ ;^^ji. xial -^fl ftanXvnoo i;Xjyo%' ^saa^ 

lease in a filthy and disapidated condition, but that waste, 

vandalism and removal of fixtures, plumbing, doors and other 

accessories rendered the building uninhabitable, and required the 

expenditure of sums undoubtedly in excess of tlie amount awarded by 

the jury. Under the circujjistances, we consider it unnecessary to 

enter into a detailed discussion of the evidence of which defendants 

complain. There was no cotmter vailing proof upon the subject, sind 

the charge to the jury as to the measure of damages was proper. 

There remains only the question of taxes. Under the lease 

defendants agreed to pay all taxes and special assessments levied 

on the demised properties from May 1, I9II, to April 30, 1931. The 

tax levy ordinances in connection with the general 1930 taxes were 

all passed during the year 1930^ and were clearly taxes which the 

defendantsagreed to pay. Defendants argue that the levy of a tax is 

not made until the county clerk extends the sam« on his books, and 

they cite several cases from other jurisdictions not controlling in 

this state, and two Illinois decisions not concerned with the question 

of what constitutes a levy, but rather with the validity of certain 

taxes which could not be enforced because the laws authorizing the 

levies had been repealed. The court evidently followed People v. 

P. CO. & a t. T..Rv.nn., 316 111* 410, which expresses the correct 

rxile in this state. It appears from the evidence that April 8, 1935> 

plaintiffs were required to pay installments of a special assessment, 

la the aggregate sum of $573 •1^* ^^^ which defendants admit liability, 

and they also paid the I93O general taxes on the properties. Under the 

terms of the lease the lessees were liable for these taxes, and the 

court so instructed the jury. The total of these sums was $2,758.07, 
to which was added interest at the rate of 5% from April 8, 1935* and 
this aggregate sum, when added to $1,741,93, the amount of damages 
to the properties, made up the total of the jury's verdict* 

^^Ke find no convincizig reason for reversing the judgment of 
the Superior court. It is affii^ed* 


Scanlan and Sullivan, JJ«, concur* 

©£!*• rfoJt4w aSXBCf vIiBi 

bus ^«a':A . .-. . feiifci'. 


:9;::3<3iqjw£' xioil: 

.■:>£t:s foellfi&iisv 

..... ■tfL!; I9;tll9 

>.i:y^y:& m-FjIo xScwqo ?>ri;t ll^asj obais. i<m 

r^ -:vni:xlBf fXBt 

♦CI'- -■*' ' - 

Slid bc6 ^ee^a:? easr-' 

09tl&p9'i 91SW ellJUJ^flJLsIq 

Lrisnsa Oc<I oilj l/Xi^ii oa 1b xmdi baa 


•a.'iiui r^'-u TKSjMoacn, 



Aptoellee, / 


CITY 0F|q6ICA8^^ 
MuJBlcipM corporf^o: 

"*"** """^ "^^^' More than five years ago plaintiff brought suit against 
.^'the City of Chicago to recover damages for personal injuries sus- 
tained as the result of a fall on the sidewalk in front of 4157 
Archer avenue, Chicago, The cause has been tried four times. 
The first trial resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for 
$35*000, but the coiirt granted a new trial because the city claiiaed 
to have newly discovered evidence which would materially affect 
the issues* However, no such evidence was presented at the second 
nor at any subsequent trial. The second trial resulted in a verdict 
for defendant, which was reversed on appeal because of improper and 
prejudicial resiarks and arguments made to the jury by counsel for 
the city and other reasons set forth in our opinion, ( Wayland v. 
City of Ch icago f 300 111, App. 6o8.) The next trial resulted in a 
disagreement of the Jury, On the fourth trial the jury returned a 
verdict in favor of plaintiff for $30,000, for which judgment was 
entered. This appeal followed. 

The essential facts diiiclose that plaintiff, about 52 years 
of age at tha time of the accident, was employed as manager of the 
Scott-Burr Stores, a subsidiary of Butler Brothers, with which cott- 
cern he had been associated since 1930* Miile walMng northeast oB 
Archer avenue on the evening of November 8, 1935» he stepped into a 
break or cervice in the sidewalk, fell, and was severely injured^ 
Leo Kroll, a grocery man, whose father conducted a store in the same 
block, saw plaintiff fall, and assisted him. He testified that 
Wayland was so weak and exhausted that he could go no farther, 
leaned against a building, shortly became unconscious and was taken 



t'liTfioo mnDHiL 

A ^ r 

lial&L olbiev 

toooea Oii;}- is b&^aBZ'' 3otiBbr<fG doisH oxi ^1sv^woii »a«»aai arid' 

J-oJti>i9v B £Ll bQilus.&'i liitii baooee sriT .Xjsiid' ;rii©tip9efixja xns ^ta noa 

iactii isqoiqml lo ©ejPBOSCf Is©qqjs no foesievai a^iw rioliiw ,^«s£iflol9Ji> lOt 

_jXJ!fi&£sM) .noxnlqo ii/o Rl dt'i anoaBSi -isxiJo bOA xSlo 9di 

A fesaiint: -ricJ- nO .Y'^J^J^ ^'^^ ''o dn^jceoissBil 

acw ;tr£QEi§fcu(; dohlw io1 ^OOO^Qi^ al&lq Jo iovs*i at iotbisiv 

,f)9woIIol iBflKiq^ aid's ,Jb9^©*xi» 

9iii Iq issuiuaia sju tsxo-iQoii. ^ ns&JtooB siid to sisid- odi in »8« lo 

« od-/!l beq.qfij'a ati t^:£<?I 48 ^«•cfJ5^voH lo a«i:fisvs* fJiiJ- no waxsva isriaaA 
su :a "Sdi al 9%ois. i-^ b^iovbaoo iQdial oaofiw ^nasi x^^oo'^S j'' tXXcrtX oaJ 


to a hospital. He remained unconscious for about ten days and 
was not released froci the hospital until early in December. 

The principal controversy centers around the condition 
of the sidewalk at the time of the accident, A number of plain- 
tiff's witnesses testified that there was a hole, groove or 
depression in the sidewalk which caused plaintiff to catch his 
toe and fall. The city, on the other hand, produced several 
police officers who examined the sidewalk after the accident and 
testified that there was no hole, but rather a crevice which was 
filled \'fXth mud and gravel, and that the only defect in the side- 
walk was a slight difference in level caused by depression of one 
of the concrete slabs. It would serve no useful purpose to review 
this evidence at length, but from a photograph introduced in evi- 
dence it clearly appears that the sidewalk was cracked and broken 
in several places from the curb toward the ouilding line, evidently 
due to a defective mixture of the coiwrete. At the ciirb the con- 
crete appears to be badly cracr.ed and broken, causing a slight 
sinking of the walk toward the street, which caused the corner of 
one of the concrete slabs at about the middle of the sidewalk, 
where plaintiff was walking, to break off, leaving an appreciable 
hole or depression which was variously described by witnesses as 
being from tw© to five inches in depth, and which is plainly dis- 
cernible in the photograph. Some of defendant's witnesses testified 
that this hole or depression was covered v^ith dirt, forming a level 
space at that point and that this dirt and gravel was scraped out 
before the photograph was taken. This was denied by plaintiff's 
witnesses^ however, some of whom were eyevd-tnesses to the accident 

and examined the hole immediately after the occurrence. It was 
within the province of the jury to determine the facts, and two 

juries were evidently of opinion that the sidewalk was so defectiv* 

as to render the city liable for damages. 

It is urged by the city that the record of the successive 

iMA Vi^tt uei iuoda lo'i axtoloajsLoow; b&atasi&i sH .Xjsd'Jtqsoxi a ei 
,'iedaieosa ni X-tiB® Ii:tjcua lis^xqeoxi aiU aoil b&eawla'i ;t«ii b«w 

-alBlq to i&(Ssasm A .^Tni^biot/ . XjsvTsble swlt lo 

SJtd iloJfc; u BeBjJBO xloiiriia' iiSjmebi& 'dti^ nl floi28siqȣ> 

3J5W iloJtdw aolvisrtd b leriiir'i im ^sloil on •: . .J botllJB&i 

b•>0Jyi)O'3:c^^l xiqs'xso;fojtiq fi isoi' , J:^a9l .ta aonsijlv© alcJ 

TjXJffoi)Xv8 ^e^JtX gjKlhXJLjjv i^ -.luo sri^t moil esosXq Xaievsa al 

-xjoo arid- d'xjio oriJ- ih ,0claiofitoo edJ lo 9'Lw;ticJtifi avi^oelsfj a od^ sifb 

::^i{«,.tl-c' ;5^itfT r.- ^n^j^oicf &fic &s:';06io \Lbad ed oJ e^iisqqB octsio 

jJiXaws^in cfW lo elbth. iKJ, . ;:, sdaXe »;ty^oxioo ed& lo sno 

9I^bX&©'. rtlvssX ullo jCjB$^cf Oit ^galiiXiJw aaw lliJiiisIq sietbt 

8j8 asaaeno.; •ditoasfc '^clejjoilfiv sav? deXiiv? xioiaeotqai) 10 eXoxi 

3sllioS9j a9339G.t±w 8 ' d^iisJbiaieloii) lo q«io£ ♦xCqsit30«?oilq &d^ el slcflnieo 

Xpv^I a sfilisiol ^J-rrif) ii:Ji:?f fir^ievoc •;;«-.• noleasiqsfo t:o ©Xori aL-ii ;J'fijcl^ 
UG fesqaisa s/sw XsvjS^is i^x: -.iiS baa iuloii i&tU #« dosqa 

a*lllJ^jEii:aXq y<^ beXfioL ,aexs3' ebw rlqsisoioiiq sxf:^ siolod 

, i.i. 

iiiiiv?c'i;a;a 'Siij j..:jSd ncixsXqo lo -^Xctfi'^foXvo snew gei-iirt 
e-v , 'i arid" lo I)'ioo'>t: exici- ;tiifld^ YC^io ©di vtf b&six; eX cfl 

trials in the case discloses that plaintiff »s witnesses convicted 
themselves of perjury on material matters, and that their testi- 
aoay should be disregarded in its entirety, ^vo have exajained the 
y' record carefully and find no justification for this charge. It is 
true that hecause of a lapse of time between the several trials the 
testimony of plaintiff's witnesses differed in some respects, but 
upon the material issues there was no substantial variation. 

Another ground urged for reversal is that the verdict of 
the jury is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and 
that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence 
the allegation of the complaint that he tiad sustained an injury by 
stepping into a hole in the sidewalk. It is argued that for this 
reason defendant's motion for a new trial should have been allowed. 
From an examination of the rather voluaiinous record, ¥/hich we have 
twice had occasion to consult, we are satisfied that plaintiff 
stepped into the hole or depression in the sidewalk while walking 
briskly along thereon, and that his testimony, supported "qy that 
of other witnesses who testified in his behalf, is/arranted the jury 
in concluding that the eity was guilty of negligence in permitting 
the sidewalk to remain in a defective condition over a long period 
of time, 

fhe city maintains that layland's fall f/as caused by 
difference in level between adjoining slabs of the sidewalk, and 
on oral argument its counsel stressed a line of cases holding that 
under the eircuaistances this does not constitute negligence, ®» 
have examined these decisions, but do not consider them applicable 
to the circumstances of this case, because, as hereinbefore set 
forth, there is abundant evidence to sustain the allegation of the 
complaint that there was a hole in the sidewalk v.hich caused his 

The city's remaining; contention is that the injuries sus- 
tained by plaintiff do not justify an award of $30,0CX). In its 
statement of facts counsel for the city concede that "as a result 


eJt 'Jl t&^tBdo aBtt 'io'i J|#id'«©i;1:l;?cxf£ on j&iiil M« xXiJ^e"ii&« bi&o^i 
.jjof ^aiocqc-T m-^^ til JbeTisllXiJ a9SgptfitJx» ami^-filfilq lo ii:iaoBlct8»^ 

luttfi ,©oxiei;iv- r:.! lo J-iIg i iliusm ©fid- ©;t x^^'^faoo el t'ouj, oricf 

\d xisjtal lis r3'.ii.LwJ J ialslqiRet* 9tii 1q coldasella ft^ 

»fci .- ^.ol'i^t 9f»n s 'lot noXioffi h* :ta.Ata&'iBb noesai 

:vV ::nri/;riifrrw 'r^-.n^«r£ aril? lO noXJ-ftHlOUBXe jQS MftiA 

:*--^-' .. .^ ... jgjs ,no©i9i«W gaoXs xXiaXicf 

'^^i-ft' ■" ^■■iXJ8Si^ offw Baeesa:^!?/ laili^o 1© 

^. -....^..j ■' ■^+:-> 9ii;}- ^arfJ* sfiXJjjLfXonoo ixX 

Li - -•'■' ,w. aL^m&i Q$ 3iX«w9fc±e ad* 

--'''" 9Ea»*id's X^RHwoo Siit iaBBOf^ts Xbio no 

-aire aaXout.^;! sxiJ J^iij <,i aoXJiisctaoo aalKXa3J©i 8*x<^Xo ad'X 

«*i fli . ; Iq Yd bsaXfii 

of the accident the plaintiff sustained a simple impacted fracture 
of the metacarpal in the little finger of the right hand, and a 
fracture in the left occipital region of the head. The head fracture 
was described by Dr, Kaplan as a contra -coup fracture, meaning that 
an injury or blow on one side of the head results in a fracture in 
the opposite side of the skull. The evidence further shows that the 
injury completely impaired plaintiff's hearing in the right ear and 
6/0% of his hearing in the left ear, and that his senses of taste 
and smell are greatly impaired," There is undisputed evidence of 
record that as a result of these injuries he suffered great pain. Is 
extremely nervous, has frequent fainting spells, averaging about one 
every four or five weeks, and that he has been unable to resume his 
former occupation as a store manager, for v/Mch he received an annual 
salary of $3,50O» 

0r» Arthur B, Berqulst, a aiember of the staff of University 
of Illinois ledical School, and connectt-^d with the Ravenswood Hospital, 
attended layland upon the injury and for some time thereafter. He 
testified that his left leg was definitely involved and swollen, 
necessitating the wearing of an elastic bandage over the entire leg. 
He said that this condition was permanent, that his deafness was also 
permanent and that he has not been able to work since the accident. 
On one occasion he was called to plaintiff's apartaaent after V^ayland 
had fallen into a faint and collapsed. This condition was said to 
have occurred frequently. On one occasion he fell in the bathroom 
and hit the radiator, breaking his nose. Wlien these fainting spells 
occur his mind becomes blanli, and he "passes out," He further testi- 
fied that plaintiff is subject to fits of crying, and that there is 
nothing known ta medical science which will relieve hla ©f these 

Dr. Alfred M, Murray, an eye, ear, nose and throat specialist; 
examined plaintiff about three times before the trial and found a tota^ 
loss of hearing in the right ear and approximately 60% loss in the 
left. Since the ear drums were normal. Dr. Murray was of opinion 

& bii£ ,i>«j8rf ^xi§i*i eifd- lo issall ;^.w.L-. ...^ ..-. l^qisiszSm' oxiJ 'io 

-^-:ri.l 3£tJtHBS>£2 ^9"H/:tD'5'y.1; ^p?©o-««^fio» fi ®% MBlqBX ,^1 ^tf feetfJtiOBsl) caw 

sd'Eiiv'- ■■ 0:^ at aalijseri aid lo ^Ob 

l&tjmt£ £Ui b^-vi'...:Ly'i @d sisiMK 10I ,i$8iuiJ3K ©locfs b 3.3 aoiSBqtsooo iqsbioI 

^IqaeH £>oowcfi*¥>.v jej-asruxoc ba^ jloerioc XwoibeM gioallll lo 

, ;;1:B9-i9dJ aie\ij Wiwoa ^o^ ban X'^t^^ ®^^^ isaq:t; ib«jilx^'fc' i>Bba9&ia 

^neiXov/Q fefti^. ijevlovni xXo^-t^l'i'-^*> saw §8 J ixi d-srtJ fasXlXi^as^ 

oal ;SHlasc 5_J'n©nBfiri9q SKur jtoJtd'lfcaoo aJiiicf i&tli blsfi eH 

bajBXxB^f lodli; Ja^jK^-ir-q.:- .:^«'r' ' .v ail aojtasooo sao flO 

od- Mas e.*iw aolJ'i^ioc ,^©«qaIIo© £«.►. o^ai jisIIqI bsri 

alXaqa gjaiJ-«lfil ©cbi:'.. . .o&. alrf solaf^sf , -ibBi 9di J- Id has 

aX ©naiid' d'js^: , iiJ^fiXaXq isdS b©ll 

•aexiJ lo tsJji sv©iX©l IXJtw iialilw ©onsioe laoliysm at awQixsl gAixiioa 

• s&a&BiltA 
alXfiXosqs d-^oifi;? bmj oecux ,T£9 ^e^o £tje ^xs'ST^* .^ bsi^V ,'rG;j ;; miiX)! bax> l&t'ii ori^t eiolscf asKlc^ ftsnrii j^oocfs lllcfnXsXq banicaxo 


that this indicated an injury inside plaintiff's head. 

Dr. G. B, Fauley made an examination of plaintiff on 
behalf of an Insurance company to determine his status as to 
permanent disability. He testified that his first examination 
in April, 1936, sliowed a partial paralysis, total deafness in the 
right ear, partial d<=?afness in the left ear, spasticity of the 
left leg, with impairment of gait, vertigo, dizziness and head- 
aches, and that plaintiff was unable to stand long on his left 
leg. H® entertained hopes of later improvement in plaintiff's 
condition. On his next examination, in January, 1937* iie found 
plaintiff had been having fainting spells, averaging six in three 
months. Ills taste was impaired. His entire left leg, from thigh 
to ankle, was swollen. There was fixation in his right hand, 
with the little finger atrophied and paralyzed. He had ankylosis j 
Ms gait in the left leg was impair©d| he used a cafla in walicing, 
and he was still totally deaf in the right ear and partially so in 
the left. Upon his third examination, in May, 1937, b.e found that 
plaintiff was unable to walk any distance. The swelling of his left 
leg continued. He had headaches and insomnia, tremor of both upper 
extremities, loss of function in the little finger of the right hand, 
there was no change in his hearing, taste or smell, and his dis- 
ability was considered and reported by ©r. Fauley as permanent. 
Other medical men corroborated these findings. 

Counsel for the city stress the fact that in July, 19 36, 
plaintiff drove an automobile froa Chicago to Lima, Ohio, a dis- 
tance of 225 miles, and in so doing was able to sit at the wheel 
of his car for a trip v/hich occupied the space of 14 hours, and 
that follovdng this trip he drove from Lima to Canton, Ohio, and 
on the following day to Cleveland, a distance of 125 miles, which 
lasted from 8 in the morning until 9 o'clock at nightj and it Is 
argued that this would have been impossible if the injuries were 
as extensive as pl«dntiff claimed. This arguoent overlooks the 



JUii/« mf-OM 

xtol^Jsr ^ a ©Ilia ^SI 

tMxS.R'iAq. XBW9aq « feewoda ,d£^X ,XJtnqA ai. 

>$fiai»q;i?d 441*' »8»| #5»JC 
(iiiiljalq ^ttrid^ fena ^eadds 

inl-iaizt ya.l:v^ aeoef feari 111.:rfl:ljBlq 

...n'iloqri ajsw fttiiai alii .axLtnoai 

.asXIcwa 8SV/ ^9Xxfl« at 

:i:fiq©«id-x. issiiil ©Xv^^lX »rl;f ittlw 

:.r? a©X d-loX eilc^ Hi Ha^ a 1x1 

vIX..*;.? II We 8BW ail fcoa 

i^a ,:tl9X «fU 

. . / lllctnlfiXq 

. ilDiift-.. . 5ai;ixl;laoo s»X 


^Hisrfo oa asw ni^di 

•.■•■Liinncn 3AV "^^IXlcfjg 

.. _ _ :'ji'.3iE 'iBn'iO 

■■. X#>eflj;;cw 

;i 'io Qtssiiii 

■ r:. 3lxi lo 

..^ . ... : S) i&iLi 

iLX-y-T'X-- u.; -^jw,:! aaxwoj.ici aaJ no 

% ■■■- 



iine ae 

fact that plaintiff's car had a special device provided in his 
automobile, which made this sort of driving possible, and also 
the fact that the undisputed ©videoce shows ids condition to have 
groim progressively worse from I936 ob# Dr. Pauley, wlio examined 
him in the spring of I936, did not think he was incurable, but 
subsequent examinations showed that he grew gradually worse, and 
for the past two years he has not been able to drive at all, Thie 
automobile trip from Chicago to Lima, OMo, consumed fourteen hours, 
and his average speed was only 16 miles an hour, kn examination of 
the voluminous record leaves no doubt that pl«;intiff»s injuries were 
of a serious arad permanent nature. There is no convincing evidence 
to tlis contrary. In addition to the expense to isiiieh he was sub- 
jected for medical treateaent, he suffered a total loss of earning 
capacity sizice the aceidt^nt, which aloaae exceeds $15,000, He was 
still a comparatively young man when injured, and the permanence 
of his injuries has destroyed his ability to pursue gainful occupa- 
tion, Undor th se circieastances, we thiiik the verdict was laot 

ThiS cause was fairly tried, and no error is assigned because 
of the admission or refusal of evidence or instructions to the jury. 
After four trials plaintiff is entitled to have this litigatioa 
terminated, !/?e find no conviiKJing reason for reversal and tim 
judgment of the Circuit court is affirmed. 

Scanlaa and Sullivan, JfJ«, eoiieur* 

oejU baa ^©Xrfiiasoq sfiivr 

ode aafit-,. 
lef^ use 

Oil oiriw fflDil qtiS ^ildamoitJB 

vIqC 1» •8'^X{J lAteO •Jioii 

. .'itft QcUJ" o^ saolS'Oi to »onBi>Jtv» 'to I^aelei no noleslff&a Aiit lo 

•Jbeiaii;'. !/oiiO eri;^ lo :fjxaiq|£«t 

t.'ws&o'j ^•l.v ^ni^vilXirc; £ia» asXiudB 

fh» University ^^t&t@ Bank, plain tiff h»T9iAg ha4 Jitdg- 
m&nt by confession ag&inat d^fendant^ • c.>« KelXy^^ on & i»)t@ 
diaited October 2, 1939« in ths utoB of $9^411, payabl® to tint 
b&ak* Judpwat was entered Jttae 5» X$MIO« thereafter d^foadant 
aoved to vacate the judfoenty and presented in support thereof 
bis affidavit and that of his ndfe, Madeline r;@lly, July 3^ 
1940f the court d^Miied his motion to vaoete the JiMgaent and 
this appeal followed* 

Tt» defwAses set forth in defendant's motion and affi-* 
davit are fmtr^foldi (X) failure of consideration! (2) that 
tbe note was procured by fraud| (3) that plaintiff bank siade 
Bisrepres«itatioaa of facts in procuring th@ execution of the 
notei and (4) that the Judgment is not for & d^ebt bona fide due, 
as required by eha|!. llc>, jp^ar# 174^ Sec. 50, sttbpar, >', of the 
111. Her. atats,, 1939« 

Def«stfiant*r< affidavit is quit@ volu^uiaDUs ijod very 
geiMral in its Epplicution to the defenses interj^sed. He 
alleges that tlurough Ms practice of dental surgery in Hyde ta.rk 
for isaasy years he became active in various co^iiiercial iJid civic 
orgenizations in the nelgbberhood ?^here plaintiff bank Is 
located^ and throiigbi these activities foriaed a business and social 
acquaintanceship with John l^layes, who Juring his lifetisM was vice<- 
president of the b&nk^ by reason whereof he entrusted to ths bank 
the investment of his funds in v^^rioua foras of security including 
mortices and cosBEBcai stocky soae of v>hich were issues sponsored by 
the banki that at various times the bank lent Mm aoney with wtaiajb 

.^.-1 II-..X tii 

1fTf??V jhjt^ 

to parciui9« th»»9 securities, aad tla^t Tarn sai^e all his lBf<Mit» 
asnts thrcnigh tba b&nk rstbar th^n through brokerage firms | that 
he vas unfamlli&r with fin&noXal arfairs, &bA tberefore relied 
upon ths advice of the bank in m^iking investments and that it 
determined for ItLm the nature and kind of securities to be pvir- 
ehased. Throughout the lengthy affidavit not oaa single security 
is mentioned, and in fact the af 'iant is not even eertaia as to the 
aaount of va&xmy which he says the bank invested for hin, but esti- 
mates it at approxittateXy $S2,U}&« 

iiith respeet to the defense that there «&s a fnilure of 
eonside ration, defendant's affidavit and that of lads wife alleged 
that in 1927 ^ purchased soma h&a&a^ l^irough the bank, as part of 
an issue which had been sponsored by the bank, upon Hayes' assioraniee 
that the bonds were safe and that tiie bank would repurchase than at 
any tiae "at 99*** The bank was evld^sintly quite confident of tbs 
security or tae bonds, since it lent defendant its own ftttids «lth 
which to purohas® thsm, but aside fr^m. that consid€>r&ti<a& the law 
is well settled in this state theit an agreement by a bank to repor* 
chase its securities UK^Ier suoh circumstances is unenforceable. 

(£B&&g,Yt fedi,s^ % ^e^i|i§„ MiiaSi 3^ m* 5S^«) 

iith ref«renee to the defeases that Vm note w^iS procured 
by fraud, and that ^liiintiff aade aisrepresent^^tloas of £tct in 
procuring the execation of the note, there is not a single allegation 
of fact upon which fraud could be predicated* the lav is well 
' settled in this state t^at one «^ seeks to reseiad a contract oa 
ground of fraud i^st plead facts whieh if taken to be tru» constitute 
fraud, (pn^c^im^a Y, ■■^ffiKAMJgat 305 III. 5a, at ^-^^^ Xhe affi- 
davit is devoid of any aUegatioas of fact upon which either ef 
these defenses could veil be poredioated* 

The allegations of plaintiff ^s affidavit cover the period 
frois approjdsately 19:7 to 1931, including the ysars of the 
depression, when the prices of securities were subject to radical 
changes, and ti^ gravaaen of def>;?itdant*s ooaplalat is tlmt securities 


.-^^J Xmi* '-" ' S %■ X v' 

iiij. ^i ; 

to ^imli 

to ;j^. 

i5 :s^j;ii«(^®*ti|«**«ii. 

i^lltl^ VW--'- ■^■^■^^ ^;-^„ ,::'U.-C oi 

j-^t^amr- ■%&XlM»'imt «tA« Ml 

. ^ HstMc c^nj '!o »t»Jtv&« §di moqjB 

i}J-^ ^i^'i ^XM ^»1t fesaU«rti«#»6 

.j#i»'Xl lioMii' AO<|£ i^9«l ^ 


:j^ *>i<i flp<ka>ja«f a^a-M af44' >t<*ii 


wMeh w«ir« pur«hftft«d lamediiitAly l>@ror« tlDs depreffsloa 4@preclate<i 

to sach an extant ov«}r « «~«rlod of years that thay b«Q«aifi i^rtii» 

less. It is slgalfleaat^ bowAverp that thft oote on «hiek Judgaent 

was entered was executed tej defendant in X9i^» ^pproximmtel/ 8 years 

after tha period covered by tiM alXeg^tions of his coaplidLikt* Defend- 

ent does not d@ny the exeoutlon of the note^ ixor Is there any aXlega* 

tlon In his affidavit explelalag th» eipcaastfinces imd^r which he 

ex@<!at^ tb» note many y@&rs after the oeeurrexiee of the events ahout 

which hxt eoaipliilns. M& action ^^s t&kmx by him ilurlag these ^aisny 

yeiirs, snsi so far &b the r^joord discloses lie never indleated to th* 

bank after 1931 th»t he felt in anywise aggrieved l»y reason of his 

trans&etieas with the bank. It «»s not until jud£tient was eo^essed 

th£it he interposed a siotion to vaeate the s&ae, and filed a chaJKsery 

proeeedlng for aa accounting. e are itai>@lled to the oofte^laslon Uiat 

the execution of the note in 193$ refutes tlia slre«B8»ta»«es set 

forth in th@ affidavit, &nd the only reasonable infar^nce in that 

he gave tlie note in settloiwnt of an inaebtedness due tlto bai^ as 

the result of his transactions witk It over a period of f®&r9» 

the motion to vaoate the Judgment «as addressed to tins 

sound diseretion of the court, and after «ar©ful examinjitioa of 

thi® affidavits in support, of the several defeases Interposed we 

In their nature 
have reached the conclusion that %tmf are too vague and g^nerai/to 

Justify the vaestion of the judptent, ©specially with the xm@xplain»d 

circuKatanee that the note was given m&xiy^ years after the aots c<m^» 

plained of, the coi^rt properly dc^rnled def*sndfeiEit«s aoilon to vaeats 

the Judgsaent. and therefore th@ order of tim Clroult court is afflra» 

Seanlan and Sullivan, JS^t eoneur* 





lo n 

'K't t/''- 




i floli 

-at std iatU 

■f-J, ^ii:f to ©oli-.'-mrr 'iff* x^l^axrt 
jtifl ad^' ^^-rf; --ilo 

t,m!^smoo ««i;>u ^ivjtix«s £»« msUijutti 

. ^rti««lMi'*W««B„ 




Prairie State Bank, plaintiff herein, had judgment by 
confession against defendants upon a note executed by them for 
$2, 299* 59 • flifi statement of claim alleged that there was a 
balance due on the note of $199 •55# for which they obtained 
judgment of $220, including attorneys* fees of $28,50. Subse- 
quently defendants presented a petition alleging that the note 
was tainted with usury; that only $2,000 was paid to them by 
plaintiff; thst the amount of $299,59 was added to the total 
of the note as additional charges; and that the $299,59 is more 
than 7% upon the amounts due from time to time. The court denied 
the motion to set aside the judgment and defendants appeal. 

The note represented a loan by defendants for alterations 
and repairs upon real estate belonging to tiiem, under the terms 
of the "National Housing Act." Since the motion was predicated 
upon a petition which was considered by the court to be insuffi- 
cient, we set forth the petition in fulls 

"Your petitioner, Herbert Baer, respectfully represents 
to the Court that he is one of the defendants in the above entitled 
cause; that the said judgment is based upon a note for an alleged 
amount of $2,299,591 that a judgment was procured against the 
defendants for $220 on June 6, 1940; and that on July 25, your 
petitioner was served with an execution. 

"That said note upon which judgment has been obtained 
is tainted with usury; in that only $2,000 was advanced and the 
amount of $299.59 was added to the total of said note as additional 

■4 Oit>i.v»Xi.S' 


....... j-asff?j|I)i .;. :. ..- ..1. - J-^.^s Ou no Id* cm sdi 

btaJbiido ne?»d aajtl ctnoiasLxjt, iiolrivf aoqu eioa bias ^asfL'" 

charges. That said amount of $299,59 is more than 7 per cent 
upon the amounts due from time to time. That the defendant has 
made monthly payments of $63,88 from Msrch 20th, 1937, up to and 
including November 2nd, 1939> making a total of $2,108.04, that 
was paid on the said note, 

"Your petitioner further represents that as the note is 
tainted with usury and as the statute in such cases provides only 
for the pajnnent of the principal and as more than the principal 
of $2,000 has been paid, there is therefore nothing due to the 
plaintiff on said note. Therefore your petitioner prays that 
Judgment heretofore entered be set aside, that this petition be 
allowed to stand as an affidavit of merits and that the defendants 
be given leave to defend this action on a day to be set by this 
court. (Signed) HERBERT BAM.w 

It will be noted that the allegation upon which defendants 
sought to vacate the judgment merely avers that the note was 
"tainted with usury; in that only $2,000 was advanced, and the 
amount of $299.59 was added to the total of said note as additional 
charges. That said amount of $299,59 is laore than 7% upon the 
amounts due fr(M time to time «■* making a total of $2,108,04 that 
was paid" from March 20, 1937| and "that as the note is tainted 
with usury, and as the statute *** provides only for payment of the 
principal, and as more than the principal of $2,000 has been paid, 
there is therefore nothing due the plaintiff," It is apparent 
that defendants failed to plead the essential facts from which a 
.^"""'''^ court could, by reading the petition, determine whether or not a 
plea of usury was properly set forth. The petition failed to 
state the place and dates of execution and maturity of the note, 
the agreed rate of interest, or other circumstances from which the 
court could fairly determine whether the transaction was usurious. 
It does not even state that the note was made in Illinois, where 
the maximum rate of 7% is fixed by statute. Other states allow 

eaa :fa*i£sas''i9£» odd" ^sfiT .skI^ od saiiiJ fiioil 9«l) e^aiioiafi ©diJ^oqir 

Xsqioniaq aciJ- ni-iU o^o.u -.u Jtos X»ql»ixl-ic: ©d^ 1o J-;iaaf%sq sri^ tot 

s«i;t Ov^ ©i?6 scliiJo0 a St sisii^ ^jbiaq flspcf Bfifi 0O0^S$ lo 

;t^5£l^ ayeaq 191* iolsiaifT ,0*00 bliss a.o tllialaJM 

eiaaba&lBb rioJuiw jsoqn' jcioi:;J:jgoXX£ ajlt ;tadi fjetfon 9«i XXiw J I 

aaw ad' on sirf;^ J^isiij- e'ls-yc yI»t^®^' Jiisies^^i^t ®cfcJ e^&osv oi id-^uoa 

isiij 4^0, 80X, saJblBia *^«^ 9mii ocr a«J:;J aK)!! sx^l* ziasfoma 

b&iaisi ei "^vtoif 91W 3j5 ;J/jriv?« feii-^ ;^C?-t <,QS do^&U aoil "fel^q saw 

^btcq flsoc! .?.rifi 0*' ,, IsqioflJ:-. . . .iBri:} e'loai sa bas ^laqiscliq 

ia-^ixiq^a ai: . t1:ionj:;5l~ orfd" &iib ■^LrHoa siotsiftcW ei 9i9ri;t 

a xioMvif fflo'il aJ'Oiil JUW/i .;«f baolq, o;t bQjUMl a^aafcaelsfe ;t3tW 

oJ- ibnli:"t nni:;':. ..ri:;tio* iQa yI'^'^'Cio'::.- s^;v \:ij:;sjj lo «9lq 

^SiJUL. -..- .- ,., ^ ,. .._. „„_...,.,.. „ „- :. _ ..... .,„_^., afW e;^BJB 

•ri;t ddijdvs^ ©oil 3 93ifljscf2iS£«oaio riaiScfo 10 j^^aoic^Jxii lo i>disT ijseijfi add" 

. aJJoXii/ax; stiw aoidoaaaa^o add i&dteri^ 9alsa,i&iBb xlilj^t bluoo diifoo 

s-xeiiw ^rJtoni.f.'"' -'• •■&,6ffi a*iw &ioix sd.;^ :i,idJ eiAis uov© Jon aeob dl 

woXIjs a9j,^,ti^ 'iwajv ,®vitii»^ijj"a x<^ i>©xl't ai i^V Ic ;iaixiiffl ©c'd 

a greater percentage of interest. We think the omission of these 
essential averments from the petition rendered it defective. 

It is generally recognized, and the authorities hAld, 
that charges for real estate improvecient loans, such as insurance, 
title examination, cost of inspection, appraisal of the real 
estate, and othar items are valid charges which a lender may 
lawfiilly require a borrower to pay in addition to the legal rate 
of interest, (C laicago Title & Trust Co. v. Jensen^ 27I 111, App, 
419 j Pushee v. Johnson, 166 So. 847 j I05 A. L. R. 795, at 8IO.) 
On the form of this petition the court was justified in assuming 
that the item of $299,59 included some items which were proper 
charges against the loan, and the mere fact that defendants were 
required to pay that additional sum did not render it usurious, 
without a specific showing. In Stanley v. Chicago Trust & Savings 
Bank f 165 111, 295, Goodwin v. BisuoPf 145 111, 421, and in various 
other d'-'cisions cited by plaintiff the courts enunciate the funda- 
mental rule that petitions to vacate judgments by confession, which 
fail to set up sufficient facts j should be denied. In the Goodwin 
case the court said (p. 424) j ''If a party to a bill in equity 
desires to set up and rely upon the defense of usury, he must 
allege the facts showing wherein the usury consist. A general 
chsrge of usury in an answer is not sufficient. *** The allegation 
of the answer may be true, and it by no means follows that the con- 
tract between the parties was usurious. *^** (Aiere the defense of 
usury is relied upon, the facts constituting the usury should, as 
a general rule, be clearly set up in the answer and proved as 
alleged **•«-,» 1^ think this properly sets forth the general rule 
in this state. 

It is a matter of common knowledge that numerous loans are 
made under the Federal Housing Act through banks under regulations 

set up by the Federal government, and before such loans are made and 
approved, title examination, inspection, appraisal of the real estate 

tc-^- .>.:; '■■,-, r. •.:. I r,.r •„-•:. _ rr,, ^ ;•..„.. ^, ,* ! -! ,- ,; ; ■ . ,...,ijanJtjajax9 eXJl;f 

(.ox-; ... ' ' -="^- , ■' (^ol ^noanriol .v sadaiJ^ j^X-l^ 

SBJtJBiJt: ,^ iva ^ttj-iq atii:? *io anol »jrf;f nO 

^ZL'ol'UJ^ss j£ 'ieDa:i'i jou ^u^j ffii;^ x;y'. vHi.j Y^-q o;} fieilirp«'i 

eaolr , -" " " .MQdam .v alw&ooO t^^S .HI ^ol ,3iafia 

Xfol^JsasJ.le s«ftl . -Ts fit •^ii.^iXf lo ©siiirio 

-aoo 9£i;' yaxLa edi lo 

sjttfi iiS'ianes ©ricr rijiol aj-ea xX^sqo-iq airier linixlj s*< ■.;•** fcegsXXa 

,scfsJ"8 sMi al 

and other prerequisites must be complied with, which entail 
expense required to be paid by the borrower. If the item of 
$299*59 did not include any such charges it was incumbent upon 
defendants to so allege. In the absence of any such averment, 
it cannot be assumed that the item of $299,59 was all interest; 
indeed, it is reasonable to assome that part of tiiis sum was 
properly ciiarged to items which usually arise under such circua?- 

Defendants raise various other points which need not be 
discussed, in view of out conclusion as to the insufficiency of 
the petition* 

We are of opinion that the court committed no error la 
denying the petition of defendants. The judgment or order of 
the Municipal court is affirmed, 

Scanlan and Sullivan, JJ,, concur « 

Ijtaan? dohu ^.Wiw ^©ilqiaoo sci jeiMi s 4 re- lL-peio^q lexi^o bos 

.....V u^... ^..-■;. -■- .-•..■- --— :.L(im^i.~-^ -- -- t^>99£iCLt 

^ rto W .f-i '5q odi 





fCE PRI9§D D'SU'/SRi©=.''ffE OPIWltnrtjF THE OOURT, 

MR.PRE^IDING^" ""^'^' 

*^*^'^*"^^ 1^ 17, 1940, plaintiff in error, Robert Schuessler, 
hereinafter referred to as defendant, was tried in the Manicipal 
court for obtaining money by means of false pretenses in two 
separate cases. Upon his plea of giiilty he was sentenced to one 
year imprisoniaent in the house of correction in each case, the 
sentences being ordered to run concurrently. The same day he 
was coonuitted to the house of correction and has there served 
both sentences, with the exception of approximately four months 
with the usual good time allowance. Defendant sued out a writ 
of error from the itanicipal court in cause No. 1706079, and while 
the matter was here pending his counsel made a motion to consoli- 
date this case with cause No, 1706078, "and that the record, assign^ 
ment of errors, abstracts and briefs filed and to be filed in this 
court be taken and considered as the record, assignment of errors, 
abstracts and briefs on behalf of both causes," being general 
numbers 1706079 and 1706078. That motion was reserved to hearing, 
but must herewith be denied because he has prosecuted only one writ 

.- ®f error, and therefore cannot seek the review of any judgment which 
is not included therein. Although defendant sets forth several 
different propositions for reversal of the judgment, the principal 
groimd urged is the alleged insufficiency of the information upon 
which he was charged, which is: "That Robert Schuessler heretofore 
to-wit: between March 2nd, I939, and the l6th day of February, 1940, 
at the City of Chicago, aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully 
and wilfully with intent to cheat and defraud by means of false 


jbevisa sisrtt z&d ba& aolio&iioo to easjod &iii oi b^iitimoo asw 

;^li?; B iiSQ beisa jnsiiae'lsO .©oitswoIlB aailJ" boog XiUJaxr ad;! iij"liir 

slidw baa ^^^OcjO\l .oil 98i;so nl i'usoo l&qiotns&L «rict^ «aoil iom» lo 

-lloajcioo ocf iioid^oia b 9bsm lazavoo sisi anlfoneq ©leyd caw iBiiam mU 

-«5les6 ^6^0Dt=ia 9sii ;JiJilct fens" ^S^OoO^I «o54 oai/ao xl^lw oaso zJaW eiib 

eidj ax bolll ocf oo bae belli sJelid baa si^osiJecfB ^eioii© 1© ^AMi 

^aio"i^9 '.^o ja&mcfglhZih ^bioo-Ji oiiJ- as fc»iftJbl£jjoo baa amiLAi ©tf ^rureo 

IjBiensg saisd '\2©8Uiio il;}-od lo llsriecf no elslid ba& BioantMiM 

^^nli^Qii oi bovisaei sew iioWoe d-jariT .S^OoO^I bOB ^060SL uie4msa 

ilTft- sao xino bsc^juosao'iq asxl »xl e&sjso&d I;9±a9b @cf rf^Jtweneil ^siot Sud 

dohirf iasmsibul xaa lo wslvsi Bd^ 3(oes ctotsfijes siolsisriS^ boa ^noiis lo 

Isi9V9e ri^'io"! aiea SELsbaoJob tigisosHlJ- ,al9i9dt bBbtsloal ioa el 

lisqioaiiq 5r>rli j;tn9i(i3bift »J^^ lo Xk819v&'i lol anoicfleoqoTiq iaoiBJIlb 

aoqsj noliiiSiiotat sfW lo xoasloHlu^xil b©a©Ii£ 9if;t e.t fc©sTJj btwotji 

aiolo^eiail asl3e.©urio&. ;tiotfo/I J-firfT" J8l rioixlw ^itsjiisrio s«w sd doldm 

<0-^QI jjX'i^Jti^'^cfs'i lo x«J^ d:}^l ^di has ,^£?I ^M^ lioiaSi assw^scT t;ttw-o^ 

Xllx/lwsim/ sisrf;? has, a&di bib ^Msss^olfi ^o&jsojtriO lo ^ilO «ri;t ;fs 

•ali:(l lo axiisam Yd vllulllw £«£ 


pre tenses obtain from Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., various 
articles of merchandise, to the value of $355.00 *** the property 
of said Montgomery ?^apd & Co., Inc., with intent then and there 
unlawfully to cheat and defraud said Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 
in violation of Par. 253, Chap. 38, Smith-Hurd Rev. Statutes of 


It is argued that the information fails to state that 
Montgomery Ward & Co., who were defrauded, believed the representa- 
tions to be true or relied upon them, and defendant's counsel says 
that this rendered the information fatally defective since iinder 
the statute the information must allege that the person defrauded, 
relying upon the false pretenses, parted with his money. It Is 

undoubtedly true that "in obtaining money by false pretenses the 

false pretenses/must have been believed and relied upon by the de- 
frauded party and been the means of inducing the victim to part with 
his property. They must be the direct cause of the loss of the 
property," (P eople v. Blume^ 345 111. ^2Ap 53*«) ^^^ i* ^^7 ^« 
conceded that this essential element in obtaining money by false 
pretenses might have been more perfectly alleged in the information. 
But the information charges, in substance, that defendant did then 
and there by means of the false pretenses " obtain " the merchandise 
"from Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc," The information follows, 
substantially, the language of the statute. In the instant case 
tiae defendant did not question the safficiency of the information 
in the trial court. Had he done so The People would have had a right 
to amend the Information. He plead guilty to the indictment and at 
the time this writ of error was filed he had served two-thirds of 
the time fixed in the sentence. The contention of defendant that 
we should hold the instant Information fatally defective and order 
his discharge will not be sustained. 

It is further urged that the Information while speaking of 
certain merchandise falls to state either the value thereof or the 
specific dates upon which it was obtained. The information does 

XC^iaQOtq 9£fct *** 00, ^^£$; 'io qvIbv oiid" oj ,9a±ijafirloi»fli 1o eaXol^iB 

^.onl ,.©0 ;& bi;^ X'smoB^fioM b±s^ ba»'i1&b Jeme iBWiti o:i xHjslvi&lnii 
to e9;tif*«*S ,V9H b-iuK-rid-li ^ , ^ :<2S .«ja^ to noWsIolv nl 

si dl .-^©ijoie BiM dAlw bBtrtiCi ^&&ea»iiB'iq ©kIbI sila noqif §£tli;l8^ 

-si) add^ X<^ xioqif bell©*! bam fesvsxlscf nsso eveii d^ai/fiiNySaensd'e^q aaXcl 

xijiA' ^i«q OCT Mictoiv &iii Sdaijbnl Io aaasia ®d;t ii9©<f baa x^'iaq bsJbkSJ^Tl 

,xioi;^BE'xolaJ: ^idS oi t)&a»IXa i;X;to©ln:®q a'xoffi need avail d'ilaJbfi a»ecs;t»«I 

^e:woXI«l £iolJi-B«iio1ii£ sdX' ".sail ^^JsquoO i> £t*r»3( x^9CNH|J-jn^ aoil" 
•«.60 ^ii«d'Ejti£ ©liir isl ,8^ifi fid's 8i4'J 1:0 ^niTiaal ^dt ^xXiisXi0«te<f»a 

tii^ti & b&Li eViiji ^X«o\4' ©Xqos>*J siO: oe friicb ed biiK ,j^£joo Xbxij aiij^ aX 

;fB biXjs i&&B:^QtbfXt ©xi^ od" it«^XiiiJi b#«iXq ©K .fK>X^iME'5«laX 91I.I tnsfiw od' 

to sbiXiij-Hjwd bg'Vis>a iifiui sti b&lll esw 'i©'i'i9 lo tfi'W exili snelct eiid 

*. oalsd'airs ee. . _„ ._j.. 93|x=^oalb J^iil 


lay the time between March 2, 1939# ^^ February 16, 1940, and fixes 
the value of the merchandise at $355* Defendant asked for no bill 
of particulars, nor was any motion Eiade to either quash the infor- 
mation or in arrest of judgment. No bill of exceptions has been 
preserved and presented to us, indicating what the evidence dis- 
closed, and therefore defendant is not now in position to raise 
these questions. The time fixed in the information was within the 
limitation period, and that is sufficient in the absence of any 
request for further particulars* 

While the matter was here pending a motion was made by 
defendant in error to dismiss the writ and that was also reserved 
to hearing. It is herewith denied. 

No convincing reason has been assigned for disturbing the 
judgment of the Municipal court and it is affirmed* 


Scanlan and Sullivan, JJ», concur. 


Iljtd ctfi 10I b924EJB SsLBha&lLeii %?^£<« r»-'i 9aJ:bn«iici9»E ^iW- lo bcIby Bdi 

"lo'iB.l sdi defii/p i&iUIb oi Btem aolS&a. \si& auw ica ^^-^Bluoitisq lo 

xsseef esxi aflbold^qsoxs* lo IXld (M .. Saem^bsfl "io ife«ii«; ai 10 aotiam 

98ld'£ oc^ aoi::ti2oq uj: won ion al d-aafefislaja ©TLOlsisri*? baa ^bseolo 

Slid iiiridx?/ 8fiw nol&m'ioJnl eafcf El bsxil ©Kief ftd" .enoiitesi/p dsaxf^f 

•^o^ lo ^oa^sfia odi £l± Sstelof^rtssn el J-srU bae ^fcoirtsq aoWsd^lCLtl 

■%(i B'tjpja asw aoi-icm r aclfciieq ©iitfi asw i»tiBBii d£f."t ellriW 

9di gsitf-ixfitalr' -Ml itsimlesie si&mi «bx1 floafiei 3«loxi±vfloD oU 

*fi»ffiiills ei: *i feos ^ii^oo iBqtotmsH sri* lo ;tn9aq5£)it 

n'Ui9Q!0€i ,*tX ^B«ViXXjrB felXfi iXBlUaoS 



(Pl^ntiff ) ^^p 


/L 349 


?^ On"fireI"irt93^'''^'^^*^^ a^ Walter S, Aiierbach, 

piT son, as minority stocMiolders of Biltmore Theatre Company, a 
corporation, filed their amendod complaint upon behalf of theci- 
selvea, and also in behalf of all of the stocMiolders of said 
Theatre Conpany, against Biltnrore Theatre Company, a corporation, 
and Nathan Bfolf, Sam Wolf, Maurice A, ChoynsidL and Morris Reingold 
as tiie ma;Jority stockholders and managing officers and directors 
of the corporation. The amended complaint charges that said 
defendants, as the majority stockholders and managing officers 
and directors of said corporation, fonaed and carried into execu- 
tiaa a conspiracy to defraud and injure plaintiffs and other 
minority s tocidiolders similarly situated. The prayer for relief 
sought, inter alia^ an accounting o£ the acts and aoings of said 
defendants, and also the appointment of a receiver for said 
Theatre Company, The answer of said defendants denied all charges 
of conspiracy and fraud alleged in the amended complaint; denied 
any mismanagement in the business of the corporation; denied that 
plaintiff .inna A, Goodman was excluded from participating in the 
affairs of the corporation or that information had been refused 
her by said defendants. The cause was referred to Ninian H, Welch, 
a master in chancery, to take testimony and report the same to the 

court, together with his conclusions of lav/ and fact. D-oring the 
hearing of the cause before the master the trial court upon motion 


.^ ^"^ffw^iiioC aij-.^o^i* o'ivJ^iwiia 'lo aiai-'Ioiii-i^^oja x^l'ioniffl se ^noE isil 

bX&e lo eiefcXofMouw... ftiJ 'io XI« lo IXjitl^tf jeix oalij baa ^savlsg 
^aoldBTioq'ic ^ i^fiSfCT ®i<MillE i^aal&^ii j^sqmoO ©i^fjieilT 

-iJOQXO oJnl l>«i'iis© &te l)Sffi":io1: ^ilO£S>yLoq10o bhsz to ano^toeiib baa 

l&lisi lol i^'^isrjq ©/IT ,f>sJ-sxid"la xl'n^lial'd zi®hlodAooiQ xilioalBi 
bJLBZ to sinloi) bail si'^& orW So iiatimsooos a& , ^lLa iBial ^^d^isoz 

ssaijaiiD lis bQia&b s^ta^sMil?.!? Iitlj^e "lo iev/aii.3 exil .TtaeqaioO snJ-aariT 

r>slasD jsfnxBlqEioo bsimemB &di ai b&:^ollB buj&it ba& X5'9'Lt<5.enoo lo 

cl-.>iic ixiDb \noiicioqioo Qiii lo eacfilawcf srid' at iasms^smimzlm "^cos 

beaifiei nescf bsj.i no-tw^isiiolnu d'i^vJ- io iio±j 3'ioq'ioo mii lo eilclls 
^ilolsv ,ii ttsixilH oj bsT-selei saw ©etf^o oriT .siiifilinslsfc JbJLsa xcf texl 


of Meyer L, Kence, Michael Kraemer, David Rogoff, Emaimel B, 
Simon, Frances M, Hohe, Executrix of the Estate of Gus Rohe, 
aeceased. Rose Mandel Wolf, Sarah J, Choynski, Bettie E, Relngold, 
Sam Rogoff, Lola Simon, Belle Simon and John P» MacKinnon they were 
allowed to enter their appearance as additional parties defendant 
and to file their ansvrer to the amended complaint, 'Ihey then filed 
an answer to the amended complaint, from which it appears that 
aside from the original individual defendants named in the cause, 
Abraham Auerbach, a brother-in-law of Mrs, Goodman, and the heirs 
at law and next of Kin of Sarah Reingold, deceased, said defendants 
were the o^mers of all the remaining outstanding stock of the 
Theatre Company, Said answer also denies that plaintiffs were 
entitled to the relief sought; denies that they, said defendants, 
authorized the filing of the amended complaint in their "behalf; 
states that they have been stoc .holders in suid Theatre Company 
for fflore than fifteen years last past, in which time they have 
been personally acquainted %lth the directors and the officers of 
the corporation and repeatedly transacted business vdth them, and 
that they have absolute confidence in the honesty, integrity and 
ability of said officers and directors; states that the charges 
brought by plaintiffs are unfounded in law and in fact, that said 
proceedings were not brought in good faith, and that the amended 
complaint should be dismissed. On May 4, I938, on his own motion, 
Walter S, Auerbach, plaintiff, was dismissed as a party. 

fhe master, after a lengthy hearing, filed a report re- 
eommending that the amended complaint be dismissed for 7»'ant of 
equity. The report was confirmed by the trial court and a decree 
was entered in accordance with the report. I&s, Goodman appeals 
from the decree. 

The master who heard the evidence and made the report, 

the late Ninian H, teelch, was an able and upright member of the 
Chicago bar for many years. The report contains such a clear 


eMc^niidF .r sllc'-etl ^tlp^^oiit: ,1, /fiji-jS ,'5i«^' Isbnali'. ©eoH ,fe6«fi»o©i> 
319^ "^ftdj- itc£aiiaQ*i5i m-i jEuiol* £«ie jsoeI?; «XIe6 ^o£Lt8 eloJ ^llosoi^ jobS 

:'■'■' r:"-f- ^•,"T'''' .:*TijtK,Iq£to." ■ •r'r • ""-' ' r-* 't«w«iib nl9d;t sill o;t baa 

SttlJ' 1« iiooiB ^iDniy^zSiio gctijaiijjfiSR'i ftflJ" lis to &t»m(o oyci^ siew 

^ 3 Jjsslia&lsl) ^Jt^e ^i:-ii^ .\jrfd' aeJ:£t?»^ jJrlgifos l^ilei odi oi b^laliaa 

jlLadso' liaricf al ^sil&lq,imQ bsbastsjn arid lo ya.iS.i.1 Qdi boslioiHssQ 

-^SOaqaoO s^sedT hix^ ul Z'iQhLoii.^i:o:ia aaecf avarl ;^9£iS ^afiO' asJ-aJ-a 

sv^i£i -^Qfi^J- siELtJ rtolfiif ax ^iJaaq ^aaX saas^ «3s;j'lX'i «adi eioa lol 

btiJi. ^Ei&iij jdolw saealai/cf SocfOi^aa**!^ \Xi5Gd'i^»qsi bmi aoliaiwitQSi 9tLt 
has x^X'X'^S'^nl t^iesncui axU nl ©oao/ii'ljaoo QivlQdda sv&d \&£U in^ 

feJUs ii^ t^io&l Hi Jbrtc waX «i: b&l-stmo'imi ©i^ a1;liJ«XsXq "^cf iri^otitf 

X)9l»i9Gi£ scut ;tts£td' biiii «ii;tir^l bo0^ jaJi, td^&tti ^on siew tsciif^&dooiq 

^nolioeiL naro aJtti ^tQ ,8£(,^X ^■^ "^^ nO «&g>E2ijEsiI) ocf feXt'Cfie ^ciAlqiKoo 

♦•^i-xaq iJ Svi b«28i:i28i6 saw ^llxwoX^Iq ^rfOfeCfiawA .o lad'XaW 

9»ioBb Si baa J-xxfoo Isiij etU XCf bemillno^ a-iw S'lo^^i 9dl •"^^JUrpo 
eXA&'.rqi^ smmhof^ ,&i^ .^^loqei stfU iiji:% sci£Us1}10q&& ill ^S'ls^^xis saw 

• £>«:£ 99^ 9x1;}' iaoil 
^j-ioQsi edcr 9i>,3£j: bus eoflsi>lV9 ad^J fc-Lsaxi oi±K i»da.5tt oaT 


statement of the issues and the evidence, and the conclusions of 
the master, that we set it out practically in toto< 

"Master's Report. 

"1, » * * 

M2, * » » [Refers to allegations of the amended complaintj 

"3. On September 8, 1920, the defendant, Biltmore Theatre 
Company, became incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois; 
the principal asset and only income-srielding property ovmed by said, 
corporation consists of a building situated upon the premises commoDH 
ly kno^m and described as 2048 West Division Street, Chicago, 
Illinois, which building contains a moving picture theater, six 
stores and five offices; the rents, issues and profits derived from 
the leasii^ and operation of said real estate constitute the only 
source of income of said defendant corporation. 

"4. At the time of the filing of the amended complaint, 
the plaintiffs, Anna A, Croodman and Walter S. Auerbach, owned 818 
shares of coiaraon capital stock of the defendant corporation out of 
a total of 4842 shares outstaJOding; and at said time the defendants 
owned said coTamon capital stock in the following amounts set opposite 
their respective names: 

Name Huaber of Shares 

Nathan lolf 933 

Sam Wolf 574 

Maurice A. Choynski 933 

Morris Heingold, , 592 

"5. During the pendency of the present proceedings 'Sialter 

S, Auerbach withdrew as one of the plaintiffs and under date of May 

4"# 2.937» signed an affidavit setting forth the reasons prompting 

his abandonment of the cause of action alleged in the amended 

conplaint, After the taking of various audits of the books, records 

and accounts of the Biltmore Theatre Company, said Auerbach arrived 

at the conviction that the management of the defendant corporation 

by Nathan Wolf, Sam i**olf, Maurice A, Choynski and Morris Reingold 
had been honest, efficient and well-intentioned; that said defend- 


lo auolciJlorxoo 'j^iJ one ^saaeiixve yiu i^iiii asusai sxlcf lo crii9iii9d'Bd-a 
;9>?o^ ci: ^rllfioi^ois'iq Ssio SI *»» swr t«ii^' ^t^^ssa «l;f 

* -> * ,.'-■ 

£>is2 i:«f bscrso Tj:fT5tqoiq anifoXexx'-sciGtaii tX«o ^^ *sa&£5 Inqloniiq 9ri;t 

,ossaid:0 t^&©id'S jHoiaJtvlC d-a©^ 8MJ!: 83 fcfltfiioEoft fciis iwromf "^X 

Broil ijaviitsf) eJHo^tq feais esj^.sX ^sS'nst »rfi js^ol'^lo avJtl feois 8©io:f8 

,d-isl£iXQ[iSoa Bftbi3»ffiii ftc?^ lo snHn 9n;t lo ewjJt* '»tli :^L ,>** 

8X8 l^^flwo tiiDJS€fisi:fA .a rr^d'XeW biia nacifcooQ .A SKeu^. ,8':itJhfni:3Xq ©tU" 

lo ;J0O jHoiaijioqnco d-iiefjfislfljfc Pf£;t lo jfooite Xa:Mff«o cofiaaoo lo asijsfla 

s(tJisfcli6l€)£> ^U f^ml^ bl rm x%atim!-^:iBfff6 s bifida 51^84^ lo Is^o^ a 

s;ti3oq<jo S&s s,im?6mt SKl^s-olXol ©iJ;t al ?'o©cf4 Xs;:fiq;*b nofsKeo fcl«a ienwc 

^ , . '^•-- '■'.■'^^•:5M 

^^^•.; ., .-,8 

■ „ . .... > . - ... . '-^lo jHisr «::•' = 

XsM lo scTBi) lofim; IwTis 8lli;?iiiiiI.T sd;- lo sflo 8b wdTtfiifJ-lw doad'xsirA ,?. 

b-^ba^mz fidS at feftS^XX* Boli^o& lo <=>Bi&so «iict lo ^si&Binobia&<i& Bhi 

<ibioo»'i ,2>(oo^ Si-y- lo ^sitbas Bwoinav lo gisliiiscl' add- 'xs;tll .ifllsXqisoo 

£>9Ti:iis ifoiJcf'r^wA bJtsa ^-^aqisoO s^cf 8«dl' dio^^tXia »ff^ lo sa^itiiooos fca^i 

jE[c*±d"37oqioo :^afl&^»l®5 asH lo itn'Jftr^ijrxTsir !^ri:f ^sif;t aoktolvaoo sdi J-e 

' bXos^la.' sXi^oJ-* bfiis X:5iantou:,- ,>. yi/i'.a;.-a. t'tXo :■ rair- ^'iXo'' OMdiBll x^ 

ants never entJered Into any conspiracy to appropriate the assets 
of said corporation for their own use and Ijenefit, and that no 
fraud had ever been practiced by any of said defendants in the 
course of exercising their duties as officers and directors of 
said corporation* 

"6, Upon his withdrawal as one of the plaintiffs in the 
present cause, Walter S, Auerhach transferred all of the shares of 
common capital stock of the Biltmore Theatre Company theretofore 
appearing of record in his name to his mother, Anna A, Goodman, 
who thereafter continued as the sole and surviving plaintiff here- 
in; although the amended complaint purports to have been filed for 
and on behalf of Anna A. Goodman and all other stockholders similarly 
situated who may wish to Join with her, none of such stockholders 
took any action in support of the amended complaint* 

"7, On August 31, 1937* Meyer L, Kenoe, Michael Kraemer, 
David Rogoff, Saanuel B, Simon, Prances M. Rohe, executrix of the 
estate of Qus Rohe, deceased. Rose Mandel Wolf, Sarah J. Ghoynski, 
Bettie E. Reingold, Sam Rogoff, Lola Simon, Belle Simon and John 
P, MacKinnon, constituting all of the remaining stockholders of 
the defendant corporation (aside from Abraham Auerbach, brother- 
in-law of the plaintiff Anna A, Goodman) secured leave of court to 
intervene as parties defendant and filed their answer to the amended 
complaint declaring that the charges made by the plaintiff, Anna 
A, Goodman, were unfounded, denied that said plaintiff was entitled 
to any relief herein and prayed that the amended complaint be dis- 
missed. Said answer further set forth, among other things, that 
said defendants had been stockholders of the Biltmore Theatre 

Company for more than fifteen years and as a result of long ac- 
quaintance with the defendants, Ha than IVolf, Sam Wolf, Maurice A« 
Choynskl and Morris Reingold, said minority stockholders had 
absolute confidence in their honesty, integrity and ability as 
officers and directors of said corporation and were completely 

Qc i^ijii^ fc0j3 t^tlTrea©*? Imsb ssw iSv/« il©iiJ- 10^ aolJ^ijioqioo bt&s to 
9d^ al s^fis&nalQi) i)l&& lo -^b x<^ fjsolctOBiq aswi ibvq bad bxiail 
"io a'lOvtosolb bus S'i95)i:T:lo as asld^wf) nt9di sulaJtoiax© lo ©eixtoo 

.jnoi;;t>3T:oqaoo fcJUe 

sdJ ni 8lxl:^£ii£lq ©xfct to sno es lews-xibiU-i-v aJtil aoqU .^^ 

J 39ii5fl3 sji:^ lo II.S fjQiielSftfi^ iisjjscfisi;^ ,8 t9il&ii ^^aaao ^nseeaq 

sioloieiedd' -"infiqiEoO 9i;ti3eriT eioguUlU ©rict lo 2fao;fs liiilqao floamoo 

^xiaiafcoot) .A sfUL-v ^i^dcJ-oci ein oJ^ sraac alii nl fcioo'?i lo gnliasqq* 

ol beli.1 used ©vsil oJ- scJioqTiMj iatslqmoo JasbnsKG •di rfaxroilJ-XB ;ni 

'J.i&ltmle !ii&bloiMoo;^s i^dio XIa l)fu» a&mbooD .A £cmA lo lljsddd no ba& 

BisblodiLooSs ilotfe lo ciiQii ^isri rfct^lw JSlot cd rielvr \;b«i od* b«;ti3ja;Jla 

.cJTiJteiqisoo fo-fsfenoffs eri;J- 1© .tMoqqxie ni aolSuB xas -Aooi 

t'x»iH©siJj XssriolM ,90uc . <. , , J^alrs*^^ oO .^" 

sf{.7 iO xiid-ifosx© ^BdcB. ,M aooaai^ ^aokIS »S XexaiBina ^lloso/l fiXvsQ 

^MamcoriC .1. i-Iji'i^l, ^U^ X©l>n«M ©poU ^£>9^BOo^I) ^odoB teD lo'sd-sctas 

at£©Xi Ites momtS> t>ll»&. ^jaoal*- ^llogofi BiB8 ^ijloanl . etiieE 

to zi&bLo{Ut)oie :^utalm»i a^ lo lis, %aliuSl.:}uaoo ^aoanViOiid .q 

-'i&dioid ^dosoiisvA m&daidk mott stisa) smti Bioqioo Sajibaeteb edi 

oi ;JiJJoo lo eyf&Bl beiwoea ia^mbooQ ,A ^miA "ilXd-fiiijXq 8d;t lo wbX-jbI 

JbsJbasE^ sd^ oJ lawac?,. 'lieiiJ- £>&X11 bita Ins&flslsfo eaX^-suiq es •aovie^iiX 

flonA ^I'iicrcX&Xq srU xd sbmi ^.e^^iado sfU iadi 3JUtii4X»®fe tiiXjsIqffloo 

^^IdlJns aaw tttiialBlq bl&a ^rsd^ b^hinb ^bobmio'laL 9i9w ^iusaibooO .A 

^iiriJ- ,3SHli1d' isriio giioffijs ,xl;tio: . ... _ ..:..; _!.. .bssaJjE 

-c xioj. 10 jxi;; ■- ;; '.i .: i.t. i j-' "•lUffl 10I ''^;ilsqBoO 

bBd eisbXoxijCooJs ^[jl'iOflliB l)iji5E ,fcXo3nieE aliioM ttojs JbianxoriO 
ea ■^d'XXlcfis fcflB x^X^S^^fl-i ^^cfsenoxi 'ilsxii al eoaobttnpo e^xrXoecfs 

vXe^sXanjoo lo e-i . lo 

satisfied with their administration of the affairs of the Blltmore 
Theatre Company* 

"8» Abraham Auerbach, brother-in-law of the plaintiff, 
Anna A, Goodman, neither supported the plaintiff In the prosecution 
of the amended complaint nor Joined the other minority stockholders 
in praying tLat the same be dismissed; said Abraham Auerbach accord- 
ingly appears as the only stockholder who maintained a neutral posl- 
ticm in regard to the controversy between the plaintiff, Anna A. 
Qoodman and the defendants, Nathan V^blf, Sam 'Olf , Maurice A» 
Choynskl and Morris Reingoldj all the other stockholders of the 
Blltraore Theatre Company resisted the charges made by iknna A, Grood- 
man in the amended complaint, 

♦»9, On or about January 15, I929, Ha than i^olf, Sam vvolf, 
Maurice A, Choynskl, Morris Beingold, waiter S, Auerbach and Anna 
A, Goodman were elected directors of the defendant corporation} 
the defendant, Sam olf, died during the pendency of the present 
proceedings and Rose Vjolf, his widow, thereupon was elected a member 
of said board of directors to fill the vacancy caused by his death} 
the by-laws of the said corpora tloa provide that the board of 
directors shall b« comprised of the same members from year to yBar 
unless chajiged at a siibsequent meeting; aside from the election of 
Rose Itolf as a director to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death 
of Sam «olf, no directors were elected for said defendant corpor- 
ation since Jsuimary 15, I929. 

"10, On or about January 15, 1929# the directors of the 
corporation appointed the following persons to serve as officers 
of said corpora tionj President, Morris Reingold; Vice-president, 
Anna A, Goodmani Treasurer, Nathan Wolf; Secretary, 24aurlC€ A, 
Choynskl, No officers have been appointed for said corporation 
since January 15, 19^9, and said persons have continued as the 
duly appointed and acting of Ulcers of said corporation down to 
the present tlB», 

"11, The amended complaint sets forth, among other 


-£>'xooDa i{9a<f^ea^& ttftii^rsdA M^ t^^^-^^^ ®^ <>*^> «#;i|jBtit^ gal^Biq nl 

uii tQ S3«l>i0£toi3©rfe 'Wim& ati^ LSm j&ioafllaa alrtioM tea titMHEOtfO 
*booi: .-^ ££mi' x^ ftl>iu£ aiXB'uMiis »ii^ j><NtaJU«^ 'ti»sq0MiC> sitJ-«ii^ eriOfctXMT 

<tn'3e€>9q s)d;t lo xost:-^b£i9q fsH ^BLl'VLUb l»«li> ^llo'i^ ms^ ,Ja«te»l9ll) •{& 
locfrrs c h',j&o aoQU&'Ws^ .,¥f»&iw a lid «1I0)^ oe«B Iusa 8)ftt>9«B9«( 

^.o jaoiJ't>'^Xf> diii JL->-,.. :,„sii&mi 4&»s$po$t4uB m Sm IxtiiauMte «««jyttr 

,i?fi^7: A :Hi-«j>iV V^ioaaisH aXi*t«M ^iiif^iasi*! sttoii«i4a^^»9 ^lAe to 

9di i:& bf>i.mttsmo s^vad sjXQ&i^q l>lii« Inxa «t^: f I tCX x''Uu»uT> •ania 
fid fsw&£^ BoX^s'xoqioa btiii t^ «i£>s±llo giLt/oe ^liOA li^aXoqqa \lsib 


tilings, that on or about February 1, 1933, the defendant Nathan 
liolf entered into a conspiracy with the defendants, Sam 'f^jolf, 
Maurice Choynsici and Morris Reingold for the unlawful and fraudulent 
purpose of depriving the plaintiff, Anna A, Goodman and other stock- 
holders of said corporation of their rights and interests as sueh 
stockholders, and to exploit and divert its assets for their owa. 
private benefit. The amended complaint charged that in carrying 
into execution said alleged conspiracy the defendants were guilty 
of various acts of misconduct consisting, among other things, of 
the following: that said managing stockholders, officersand directors 
made false and fraudulent entries upon the books, racords and account 
of said corporation, and that said corporate records were kept in an 
improper and disorderly manneri that daring the period from February 
I, 1933i to May 31, 1935* the defendant, Nathan Wolf, wrongfully 
took credit upon the accounts of the defendant corporation for variou 
sums of money for miscellaneous items, supplies, repairs and insur- 
ance; that the sum of $360 was improperly charged upon the books of 
said corporation as a liability owing to the defendant, Maurice A, 
Ghoynski, for the rendition of bookkeeping service s| tliat the defend- 
ants did not retire Junior mortgage bonds issued by said defendant 
corporation in an equitable manner but preferred themselves over the 
plaintiff J and that thie defendant corporation paid the sum of $200 
to one August Rohe and the further sum of $300 to the defendants, 
or either of them, in payment of the junior mortgage bonds without 
the surrender or cancellation of any bonds, 

"12, At the time of the incorporation of the defendant, 
Biltmore Theatre Company, the amount of its authorized capital stock 
was fixed at the sum of $200,000,00, divided into five thousand 
shares of common stock and twelve hundred and fifty shares of preferr* 
stock; thereafter, on or about May 15, 1925, all of the outstanding 
shares of preferred stock were surrendered and cancelled in the 
following manner: under date of May 15, 1925, the defendant corporatii 


^lloft' ma'ti ^ziasba&lesb ©fid- d^l^ XSatiqacoo s o^jtti bsisd-joe IXo* 

jlsfis 3s ad-aa^s^fti; bna s.tflalT: il©/id- "to noWBioq^oo fiJtae lo gisMoxi 
iswo ilsjfl^ Tco*t eJ-sses 8;fi 5i©vife bOM Stoiqx9 of im& ,einfoIorfioo^s 
sal^iijio aJt J^Kiid' ^si.sMo ^nl:BXfl[tt&a fr«&iii«a ailT .JJ:1ejH»cf s^Jevliq 

lo ^eialiic^ lexfd-o Sfloiss ,8fll3-a±anoo d Dxrbisooa Iw lo a^toe airoliav lo 

jiocroslli) finfisisoillo ^aieblofbiood-e sfLtsjanaffl fclBfi tsrfit ignii^ollol 9di 

tamoosis Mfi aijiosei ,a:ioo«f eft& aoqv aelid-na .tftsljxfcjjjail Isfl* ©alcl sbsm 

£t6 ni iq&ii o'isw afeioooi sd^isaoqioo Jblsa c^aricf imB ,aoid"!3ioq^oo fclse lo 

Xiawicf^*? ffio'il beli®q &d:i ^kltuh dsrfd- $«c9xxfis« ^l^afeioaib brxs isqoiqiil 

XXI«lsxioiw ^IXov, tisdiiM ^.yoQba^^sh »rf;t ,?£?X ,X£ -^c^M o;t ^£t^X ,X 

soxii-v tloI aoXd-B^oqio© ^hnsfenelefc arid- 1© einwoDoe aii;t noq0 dlfcsto 2ioo:t 

"lis^ial i'MB silsqe^ ^aalXqqxjB ^&tst&it BJ«>»ajsXX902la lol x^^om lo tmaz 

lo aiiood dflcf neqj; begisilo •v.XisqoiqfSx asw 0^t$ lo ^^^^ *ri^ ^Bild^ ;»9fls 

♦ix ©oiittsM ^i^aeMslsi) arid- od" gnXwo xd-iXiEffiiX b as aoid-aioqioo .fcXse 

-baol'ib Q^ d-arfw leyolvisa gnJtqasaWoo'J 1© aoli-ibstoi siii nol ^XilEiixorfD 

iji^baal^b btsQ x^i b©-U£8i aijnocf sgead-ioffl loXm/t &iti9t &oa bib zitiB 

Bdi 1&VO ssvXaaflifciii fo©'i^sl9iq issd lenttam &ld&Slvp9 ns itX flo±:f3Toqioo 

00S$ lo luwe Slid bloq floid-sioq-xo^ SoBbaelfifb «itf d-sri^t ba& jUldnleXq 

^hiimbaol&b ad;^ ck^ m^^ lo ia«r« larid- jjrfl sri^f hOB stffoH c^aujirA ©no oct 

di^cddiw abaotf osfigdioffi loxnut »d^ lo ^awtfisq fil ^«iMf;t lo isrid-ls iro 

^atnocf vns 1© aoUBllQoa&o to T©to9iijjB eri^f 

^Jn:iLEiclrb Qdj lo xioXJ^ iioq'f.ooni »ri:^ lo &&tt ^Ai SA .SX** 

iioode Sji,ilqif.o besiicnildifs »:tX lo ;timoflUi ©rid- ^^casqateC dtc^ssrir srcopuXxci 

i>«BaifOil«' 9vil oi^fl-i: baftivlfe ^OO.OOO^OOii^ lo msiZ add" ;tis boxll ••» 

iielsiq lo B©i.sri2 x^lll Bfie bBibmid 9Vlm'd Ms jIo©d-a noioBoo lo ae^ads 

^Ibaat&iiiQ wid lo XXe ^^S^X «'^X Tjait duotfa ao no ^istflaenerii jDiootB 

wfcf ill bsXXsonBO 6jHi5 66i»£i««iiiis S'isw atooda Jbenslsnq lo B»n«if« 


executed a Junior mortgage trust deed upon the said premises 

owned by it as security for the payment of a series of 680 junior 

mortgage bonds in the aggregate sum of $116,000*005 said junior 

mortgage bonds were distributed to the various stockholders of 

the defendant corpora tioa in exchange for their shares of preferred 

stock which were thereupon surrendered and cancelled, 

"13* Under date of March 20, 1933, the plaintiff, Anna 
A» Goodman, entered into a certain written agreement with the 
defendants, Nathan tVolf, Sam f®lf, Maurice A, Choynski and Morris 
Reingold and Walter S, Auerbach wherein each of said persons agreed, 
among other things, to refrain until May IJ, 1941, from taking any 
action, by foreclosure suit or action at law, to enforce payment of 
any of the junior mortgage bonds owned by each of said persons in 
the event of a default in the payment of an installment of interest 
or principal due upon any of said bonds; said agreement further 
provided, among other things, that in the event the Biltmore Theatre 
Company would thereafter make any payment of principal or interest 
upon said junior mortgage bonds, *such payment or payments shall 
be distributed to each of the parties *** pro rata according to theii 
respective holdings ***t, g^^ g^id agreement further provided that 
in the event of the violation of said agreement, said persons were 
released from its restrictive provisions, 

"14. Anna A. Goodman, the sole and surviving plaintiff in 
the present suit, contends among other things, that the defendant, 
Hathan Wolf, along with said Sam volf , Morris Reingold and Maurice 
A, Choynski, violated the terms of said agreement of March 20, 1933> 
in that said defendants, in managing the affairs of the Biltmore 
Theatre Company, caused themselves to be preferred over the plain- 
tiff ia regard to the amount of payments made on account of junior 
mortgage bonds, 

"The Master finds that as of September 30, 1935, the 
defendant, Nathan Wolf, had received the total sum of $1,700,00 


»ssxRrf»T:q blBZ &d$ fioqw feeafc ^sj3ij- ^sgjsgif^PME: lolfUit 6 b»iiJ9«x^ 

lolnut 08d to a-aiiea s lo J-iT««5X>:»q ox(;t lol -^cflawofts as ;H t^f b&avo 

lohwl, bias ;0a*OOO, dll$ to msss. oifss^iisaa eif^ Hi: s^izcxf ©gagchioai 

AffBA ^.llWaifilq Slid- ^ci^l ,0£ ii»g:j?ifl to «j»'af) ^©feaU *^I* 

^b&Bi^B eito«T:©q feijsa lo fioiis £ij:»^»ri«r rfoa<f^»i;/i ,b is^Ii^W bos i»IodfildJI 

fii asoa-rsfq bias lo ifo,?© "^d b&ime zbnm B^e.'^iiom lohiLi 9£iS lo y^aa 

''--'iB;i£Ll lo ^ a^inlL^i tsnl hb lo J-Hssrcsq SFfd" joi *i«sl<9£i a to ^tnav* eili 

lOfii'issI iM&m&etiiei blsi ydbaod bia?, lo ^a ao«j« «i/b laqlonliq fio 

f^i^tieflT eiofEt:fI±S sfi^ j^nev© mii ml taricf ^asfliilJ^ isdd-o ^aooB ,b9blTetKj 

:tasi'is4"fli lo Ifiqi:oj!3:i:- ' - tnsBJ^dq ^so »3ififfi lad-lasn^rfcJ bX»ow •'^luaciBKrO 

Ilsrie e^nsfli^iso lo rfai^t'^csq rf^i^s' ^abflcxf «3j88tioai Tolrmt bJtaa isoqi/ 

x-'^ilj Ou gflliJiosofj .^J-sT O' ■"'■' 3©l;J*ii5q erij lo rfosrs o^ ba^mfi^eJtb scT 

iBiiJ- bsbtvoiq iftrict'xifl jxi&iuoc'iga biBC bit-; j»*** egfllblorf «vldDeq2« 

919W aaoaiaq blse ^;)n9iss©i3B fclBs lo iiotisloirv sriJ^ lo cfit»v« ©jti;f at 

.afioleivo'sq ^vWol-itseii sti bjciI be?.Q»l9i 

at YliialiiLq afiJtvivira fSiitii ftXos a*[^ ^^tambool? .A scacft. .M** 

^jnBbfl3l9b ©fid ^iriW" ,3SJCilri:t aexi^o gfloas abjas^itoo ^tJtf/2 in3e9*iq Bdt 

ooltf 5Io8fijt9/i aitioK j^Io^' iswffc blF.8 dJlw snbis ^llo*^ a&iiiB^ 

tcL9i ^^)^ do-iiiM lo J-n«>jir99is'i 6ii?'£ lo amisJ- sifcf dscTsXoIv ^iJlafl-^oriO sA 

sioffijiitl 9ii^ lo eilallB mit gta^eWBiB ixl ^ac^riiibnsleb bliss d-Gjcf:f at 

-niaXq ori* iftvo fo^*tT©l9nq sd o:f s'Hrlssiasxf^ h9sffBti ^tn.oqflioO ttti-wftrft 

lojtm;!; lo imsooon ao sham ec^nesncsq lo tttssoiE& Bd^ oi fi^tjsei al Jttf 

.zbnocf ©sBScftroit 
«ni t?£^X tO£ •is^9;tos8 lo ejs ;tarfi BbHll i^eaM »xfT" 

on account or in retirement of said junior mortgage bonds owned 
and held by him; said sum of $1,700,00 represented 56-2/3% of the 
total amount of his matured junior mortgage bonds down to and in- 
cluding September 30, 1935 J during said period of time Anna A* 
Goodman received $1,800,00 from the defendant corporation on account 
or in retirement of junior mortgage bonds owned and held by her; said 
sum of $1,800,00 was equivalent to 56-1/4% of her matured junior 
mortgage bonds as of September 30, 1935« 

"The Master Finds and Concludes that the plaintiff, Anna A. 
Goodman, has wholly failed to establish that Nathan Wolf or the de- 
fendants, San Wolf, Morris Reingold and Maurice Ghoynskl preferred 
themselves over the plaintiff with respect to the payment of interest 
or principal due on account of their matured junior mortgage bond 
holdings; it further appears that after September 30, 1935* addi- 
tional payments were from time to time made to the defendant, Nathan 
Wolf, and the plaintiff, ilnna A, Goodman, on account of their re- 
spective junior mortgage bonds, and as a result of said distribu- 
tions, the plaintiff received payment t© the extent of 65% and the 
defendant, Nathan l.olf, to the extent ©f 63% of their respective 
holdings as of February 1, 1937« 

"The Master Finds and Concludes that the plaintiff has 
failed to establish that the retirement of said jimior mortgage bonds 
by the Biltmore Theatre Company was made in an illegal and inequi- 
table manner or that the same constituted wrongful or oppressive 
conduct on the part of its managing officers and directors, and the 
plaintiff has wholly failed to prove that the manner of making 
interest and principal payments on account of said junior mortgage 
bonds warranted the relief prayed for in the amended complaint, 

"The Master Finds and Concludes that neither the defendant, 
Nathan Wolf, nor the defendants, Sam Wolf, Morris Reingold or Maurice 
GhoynsidL, as majority stockholders and managing officers and directors 
of the Biltaaore Theatre Company, entered into any manner of conf 

jboxiwo ajsaoci" sgiea;^"!!)^ ioJtajd(, ZiLna lo ;)^xi«Bi«iJtJ'9a ax "io Souooob aj 

pA jsaoA aai^ lo l)oii&q Ijjt^a antoj^Jb 1^4 ^JE ,0£ it»«&E»;tq9a ]^aXbvlo 

;rniK>oOia no xioJuTB'Xoqioo inalifls'isl) &iii moil aQ.OOB^X^ bavisosi aattfeooO 

jblaa ^nsri x^ bl©ii JiiCii tormo efenoa s»a&ai'iom 'xoi:ni<{, lo in^i^ilj^'i al 10 

•xolfUL'Q l5»ittJj5S loii lo ^>\I-^^ od^ cfflfeiavjU/ps a*w 00,008,1$ lo sirs 

«^£€X «0c a$C(£3@J^qd<^ lo Sa 8£l«04 9SfiS^10flI 

-&ij Strict 10 IXo*-/ «*irf^BH -j.a££i^ xieiXcfii^e© o^ feeXjUl >cXXoriw esil ^aabooO 

fe»iiel0'^q i2£aiix««^-> ©siiii^ iiim blo-^l9fi slaioM ,lX©«f OfiE ^aiaAba9l 

:f2Bi©jfii 1© Ja^flTsiaq ©d;^ oi d-osqas-s diXw llicTiiiAXq fitid^ isvo es-vXegisaiid- 

iiitocf saa^d'^QCi laxxiLt b&'Witmi ilsdi 'to iauoao© no •^b XaqioaXiq 10 

«il)£)B i^£^X »0£ i»ciJB»;Jq«ii lai-l/s ifsM^ eiaeqqa la^oj:/! Ji legnxWorl 

xiBdcJ-tiH <c^xisMsl0i> 9£iS Ovt ©fcsfii aiifXi od" aei^ ao'xl Mtaw sd^aaffCAq XBaol;:t 

-.91 iX©il;j lo cTistfoaoB ao ,iifiiebooi) ^& AfioA ,'itXd^al«Xq ari;J bOQ ^IXa'f 

-JUdlLtaxb wXfiJB lo iLii&Bi u at; fcits ,*faaocf esaa^^ioa lolmii «vXd-©»qe 

9iri;f &eut §^€S lo iuQ-^m® ©sd>^ at *flefliis»Q b«vXe&©^ llliJjiXftXq ariJ ,eiioi^ 

©t:;?05ki3S'i iXsfio' lo =.;£d lo ;^fl&^XG ®^i oS ^IXoV) nB£Ltail ,;^fljsfc«sl©b 

*Si^^ »-t xn««H€f9'i lo siiEt e^XbXoi- 

efaaocf ©gsg^tioifs 'ioi£ii;(, filjua lo ia&mr'%±3 mi sa^ JadJ^ dlciXdedSBo aJ SsXIbI 

-IcpafiJ: lifiB XsaaiXi xw aX 9£>am a.w XPi»^>K>^ »'cJ-fl©ifI ©icwJXXH ari;^ xd 

©visaonqqo 'lo Xiilsxio'iw i3©;tji;fXie£io» snuae wi;? ,J'iiri;J 10 i9tmuR Bids:} 

9dS l^fi ,8ao^d@?Xi» bHB sidoX'^^lo SJUsfiOAis eti lo ;iiiq Biii no ;t9jy£)aoo 

jpiMajK lo *i®iift«« ai4* ;t«£l* ©voiq oi bQll&l xXXoiiw asd lli^nX^Xq 

«ja8CtioiH loXfiyt ^138 "i© iiwosoQ ao a^asc^^q Xjaqlaniiq btus. ia^i&ial 

♦ d-nXalqjaoo b»£ua©iifi snii ai i&l b&^siq leiXei odi b^ia&i-um afiaod 

soi'^iiM '10 bXosfllB^- aliiofc ,lXo&1 ffl»c ^atnisXtfifelsb arit 100 ^tXoV: osd^eM 
tioiOQiXb boA aiQOl'ilo jpi«t8««*« bsm a-iafeXoxtsooi^E x^X^otam aa ^XJLaxriodO 

_^r«nn ^«t >rAMMa.Mi -emit n'i'<<f> fvA«>A3^atA . vrrc•/TRt/^.'"'' on-.i- a Aff T a«mflr.°t T fff BH.'t '^n 

splracy, in February, 1933# or at any other time, to exploit the 
assets of said corporation for their own private benefit to defraud 
the plaintiff and other stockholders! the plaintiff has failed to 
establish any fraud on the part of said defendants or that the 
latter at any time acted in bad faith ia performing their duties 
as officers and directors of the Biltaore Theatre Company, mis- 
managed its affairs to the detriment of other stockholders, or 
acted in illegal, wrongful or oppressive manner entitling the plain- 
tiff, Anna A* Goodman, to the reHfef sought by the amended complaint, 

'♦15. The Tsrltten agreement entered into under date of March 
20, 1933> between said plaintiff and the defendants contained a 
schedule of junior mortgage bonds owned and held by each of said con- 
tracting parties and all of the other stockholders of the Biltmore 
Theatre Company, including August Rohej the plaintiff asserts that 
said schedule is conclusive and must be taken as a complete and 
accurate list of such bonds which remained outstanding as of March 
20, 1933* and further maintains that any bonds omitted from said 
schedules must be considered as having been paid and cancelled prior 
to March 20, 1933. 

•♦The Master Finds that the schedule of bonds annexed to said 
agreement of March 20, 1933# was incorrect in various particulars, 
including, among others, the following; (1) said schedule omitted 
bonds number 340 and 341, each in the sum of $100,00 due May 1?, 
1933i owned by August Rohe; said bonds, although not scheduled, were 
unpaid and outstanding as of March 20, 1933; (2) bonds numbered 229, 
264 and 368 each in the sob of $100,00 maturing respectively on the 
15th day of May, 1931, 1932 and I934, owned by Nathan '^olf , were 
omitted from said schedule although they had not been paid and caj*- 
celled prior to inarch 20, 1933; and (3) said schedule failed to list 
bond number 346, in the sum of $1,000,00, due on May 15, 1933, owned 
by the United States Audit Company. Said bond remained outstanding 
and unpaid as of March 20, 1933. 

bUBtlLBb ot jlleiiecf s^evltq asao iledi ^ol xiolc^Gioqioo filae lo 8.t9B8s 

©dj - , :o s:faiib£tBlQb feiaa lo J-^sq «fW no hUBlli x«b iia±I<fs:f8& 

-sjtff ^^tfiJSQato^ 9i;;Js©fiT ©idfiJXlS 9dt to sio^tjfiilb fens sisolllo es 

rio'isM "io ©tab i&bBii od-«x fesiedne d-aefitoe-rsu ne^itliar «dT »1$X" 

Mar; »^9lqff!oo 6 a«5 ii93Ije5 &4 4ajm b£i& ©vlaifXoaco sX ^lub^dot bice 

blfi& faoi'l be^iiMo efcaod -^ja* Jafi5 enXfiitnX^fl: i»ti:iiu1 f>«fl ^cC^-i i^iS 
i-jXiq LeXX^sjOiss Ins ^i^iq £[f>90 sBXvjsii as bs'isfcXecoo fttf J'ai;fl! aeXJJbeiloe 

,CX xs!til ©xfi» t>u,aoX<v io iuu2 ©rid- al do^as ,X*t. ^sfi^ ©H t©tf«oxt stcux^ 

©19W ^LsXirbSiioE joa ilsifOfijXa %si>e<KJ oXise |9d«Ji ivs^J^ X^ bwwfo »^££^X 

^^S bci&cteLrfi s^uccf (S) iCt^i «fc*S dorudi lo as anX-ciiaita^iJO ims btsqau 

feffJ^ n -"cXovX;} ot-qasi s£iXi:i;:^«ffi 00«CK)X^ lo Mrs aufj iiX nsB® 8d£ I«IjB >^^S 

--:iBt) bxiB ijXj^q rto»</ ij..€>G. ii$ii "^dii _ Mri/ksodilB sXi/fceiioq fclsjs ntotl fiei^^Xfc© 
JaXX OJ i;sXXt;'t elkibodoa bias H) iMia i£c^X «U£ rioii^ oJ aoXiq f)eXX90 
b©xr«rd t^^?^ ««I^ Xfi^ «o 0Hb. ^Q*:j»QO&x^^ ^"^ auja ©xl:t aX ,^t lacfjcuis fcnocf 

3iiXitafi;tffijeo fesffiacei Isfiotf Jbiv?c .^oBBqfflcO ;J.tbpA e©;f»3>s bB&inja Qdi \d 


"The Master Further Finds that on or about May 15, 1933> 
the Biltmore Theatre Company paid the sum of $200,00 to itUgust 
Rohe in retirement of junior mortgage bonds number 340 and 34-l> 
then owned and held by him, which remained outstanding and unpaid; 
said payment was made in exchange for the surrender and cancellation 
of said bonds and constituted a proper disbursement of corporate 
funds| in November, 1933, June* I9 34 and December, 19 34-, August 
Rohe received the respective sums of $68,00, $68,00 and $6o,00, evi- 
denced by checks of the Biltmore Theatre Company, in payment of inr- 
stallments of interest due and owing on account of outstanding 
junior mortgage bonds oimed by him at said times; said payments of 
interest were likewise proper disbursements of corporate funds* 

"The Master Finds that in June, 1934, February 1, 1935, 
and March, 1935, the defendant, Nathan Wolf, surrendered bonds 
number 229, 368, and 246, each for the sum of $100,00, to the 
Biltmore Theatre Company for cancellation; said bonds remained out- 
standing and unpaid at said respective times and their retirement 
is entitled to be treated as proper disbursement of corporate funds 
by the Biltmore Theatre Company, 

«The Master Further Finds that in July, 1935, the defendant, 
Nathan Wolf, received the sua of $800,00 from the defendant corpor- 
ation in payment of the balance due on account of junior mortgage 
bond number 303> then owned and held by himj the correct balance 
due on said bond amounted to the sum of $800,0G and accordingly 
said expenditure was proper and did not result in any overpayment, 
as contended for by the plaintiff, Anna A, Goodman. 

♦•16. The plaintiff, pjmsi A, Goodman, contends that the 
said defendants are chargeable with mismanagement of the affairs 
of said corporation in that interest payments v/ere made on various 
of said junior mortgage bonds to persons other than the actual 
owners and holders of the bonds to which said interest install- 
ments appertained; the plaintiff alleged that in June, I935, interest 
payments were made to Morris Heingold and Nathan Wolf on account of 


si^anoqioo lo i'nee^eiwtfelf; iscjoiq a f>euL';tjtd"8noo fcns 2 5no€f fcJtsa 1© 

-ill lo :tfl3jEY -.a. Hi ^-^cuqiBoC ®ii-fi«iil' s^ojEillS ail;t lo 83fo»iio x^ b^ansb 

Sfl.t5n.y;J^ J-jooooob jso gxilwo fens eub ^tseisd^ol lo sc^nsmXIjB^s 

"io ziaaoLx&q hL-.z jasfiJlJ' feist: i& mM x<S b&mfo zbnod ©sag^loE leiswl 

^etfflsl ©^s-Toq'xo© lo e>ti3eiffi»s ijrda If* leqoiq SBiwsjfll stsw teeTs^al 

zbnorl .oeiGf>ff<MiL'a ^"ilo^ fStsrf^isH ^^afjB&H©!-©!) edS ^'^E^l ^^oisll baa 

ericj- ort ^ 00. 001$ lo kjjs eil^ lol i!&b& ^d^ fe«BtB^£ ^^S; isdmia 

"itso ftsasififii©! gMod {xioi* sXIt^ojJWO tol 'v:«aqffioC srt^aadT 9iOE!;fIiS 

atmsli ffi is^oqioo lo ^«9ffi(«raijydB±ft isqow *« b^faeni^ stf o;t bsl^fi^fl© il 

♦'^aqcioO Mc*s©ilT ©rrocjcfUa »d[:t x^ 

,iasba^t&b srf:t ^^£QI t"^^^'^ £^ ^-^*^i^ eJEifll'ri T»ri;rns^ iteiealf »rfT* 

-Toqioo :?asfcii«5lsl) exld^ ffioil 00.0081: to Bare ad:f feevt©©©*! ^IXo*; aisxtJsW 

©SB§^TOB!; TotJti?'^ lo ^msotos no »»fe ©{Wialftd siJ^f lo trtainxsq ill nol;tB 

•WRfiljecJ d-©9iT09 eri;^ jold x«f ^X'srf fens fteewo n«il;t »£0C iscfjKin bnorf 

Xi3is.tft'2©^j:i'jft feni& U0#Ci06^ lo jbus wf:f at b«;^ia.'oa£ feaocf bl&tk no ei/ft 

^JxieiETIBq'reVo t^f^ ni cfXir/sei :>c*K fclfe fens i^gotq esw 9i«:Hbfl»<iX9 £)l«a 

*«jSffi6GOt) ,A iUMA ^llicfHifilq ©/iJ' x^ io^ ^©bns^floo i« 

orU cfsxij alne&not> t£LSE!f>o«0 ,.n jonnA (lliifiHijsIq wIT .dl** 

««tlfill8 sdl^ lo &a&sa9'^&tt(i£salsi tU^i:ts ©Ia'M«:8isrio ©tb p^nabfieldb bta* 

5J3t>iii8V no sftAi? ftT:»w eJ-saflncBC ijaei&d'iti ;ti£^* fll nolvSioqioo bt&z lo 

Xitifc^oe ©jdJ flarii)' TstHo anoeieq e«f efcflocf ©3t5s;J'ro«i io.tni:f(; felsB lo 

-•IXs^aal ;^acie;fn.t btev. dolrfw o:t atisod f^ifd' lo ziebloti fciie eieowo 

feev. „,,* .'.-1 t-.-^^ •i'- L--3oIX^. ')1L1aiflIq »£» ;fc»Kl3^i©qq« a^nsa: 


bonds number 5^6, 479, 668, and 46o and that said bonds were 
owned by persons other than said Reingold and Wolf, namely, E« 
Simon, J. McKlnnon and Anna A. Goodman; the defendants intooduced 
evidence tending to explain the propriety of said interest pay- 
ments} said evidence was to the effect that bonds number 566 and 
479 were owned by E» Simon, a relative of Morris Keingold, and that 
bond number 668 belonged to Morris Reingold rather than J* Mac- 
Kinnonj it further appears that an interest payment in the sum of 
$40.00, received by the defendant Nathan n'olf, in June, 193?, did 
not appertain to bond number 46o, owned and held by Anna A, Good- 
man, but constituted a payment of a& installment of interest due 
on a junior mortgage bond of which said defendant was the rightful 
owner • 

"17. It does not appear that E, Simon or J, MacKinnon 
objected to or considered themselves agg»le«lf4 by said interest 
payments made in June, 1935; said Simon and MacKinnon joined in the 
filing of an answer to the amended complaint denying the plaintiff's 
right to any relief herein, 

"llie Master is unable to Find op Conclude fro® the evi- 
dence in the record that the payment of interest upon any of the 
junior mortgage bonds issued by the Biltmore Theatre GompaEgr under 
date of May 15, 1924, ultimately inured to the benefit of persons 
other than the actual owners and holders thereof, or resulted in 
a diversion of corporate funds to improper or unauthorized purposes. 
The Master finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish that 
the payment of installments of interest of said junior mortgage 
bonds in anywise approached fraudulent conduct on the part of the 
defendants as the managing officers and directors of said corpora 
ation, or that their acts in that regard were illegal or oppressive, 
warranting the appointment of a receiver to take over the asset* 
of the Biltmore Theatre Company or any of the relief sought fey 

the amended complaint* > 

"IS, After the filing of the original complaint herein 

©low Bkaod bti-Mi iM'J bOB 0^ baa ^8cv , dtsmsx ^baod 

*?i ^Y-^si^^i^ ^IXoW ban £>XoBixl9H bl&n lusjii 'xa^o saoensq ^^d bsnwo 

feaoAfboaftni eia&bae^: ^ iiiEfii&cor:: ,,'!v eca'^ cni, nomiiJioA .1, ,floiiiia 

Sifts ^d^ i&^msn stood ;Jaxl^ jod'llo srfJ od smyt ^aanblvB bt^'is. {aiaem 
iasi-J; has, ^blo}in yvli&lfi'L >j ^aosalci «S \ii feenwo ©new ^-^ 

to flttJz 6fLT xii ^aofsnjisg iz&i&:fal a& i&dt eisaqq-i •i»ri;}"iKl J-i ^flotiCLLS 

felb t^£^X tSi-;. ; iicrsM iSisJbws'i&b sd:t x<f bovisosTt ^00, OH 

-JbboD ,A aiXDul -{(.f blari Ijois bstcfwo ^Od^ i-dmmi b«©Gf o;^ alja^ieqqe ;^Cifl 

J9ied-xij: 'to ^©ffliXrs^sjtil a£ lo iaQteri&q & b&itj;t Lit aaoo cti/cf ,iiaKi 

nofiaiSo 4 ■-.' miSE-lci ,3 ;tBx{;f lijeqqs ;tQo; aoob 

;|'S6fTt3d'f3i: blBC xd ^mr'&'ts^yy'- s^&vl^umocii b9'x&blBaoo lo oi hQioal^o 
odd- ni beisiot nonnlS^jsM bfitis nocilt; bijsa i^£^I ^&asj1 al ©bsw £;Jn9fintaq 

,iil?>i«>ff l^^lXei >cafl oi itdali 

-ivs siii fiio-il sJdjjXohoO 'xo Iml''? oi sXcfso, .: a.^ sdl" 

£iii;t lo ""icxa aoqjj ;^8®'i«dTil lo Sn^mrjrq sdi i&d.} bnoosi «d^ al ooaab 

is>b£W TCftisqffioC oid'B^riT PTO-etJ -sceal abnocf ssjaaJ-ioa loloxr^ 

aaoe^sq lo j-Jt'ton, ^ .iBJBSBlilsj ^f^S^'X ^^X x^M lo 9;ffil) 

ai, bBili^'. ^loetsfW aisbXorf &na 3i?>0':to Xsi'cto.': sild- aaii;? isxt^to 

.aoeoqujq JbeaiitCtfW'Wsiic lo leqoTqfi" xo floit'ievifi « 

itsfit ifailci'sctae o^ bell '^.ISntnlq &di i&dS zball isJaaM oilT 

©Ssaitior. 'loiiiut bl J ainesBlli^Saat lo d^jwa^sq adJ' 

silc)- lo o-r..:; '■^.cL* a~. ioi-'baco v^aplL'fcx.rsT'^ 5'?ri0fi0iqqfi eaJLwx<is nX zbttiad 

-<K>qic. ;.';':>. '.■ju-;;-:; S'i:.t 2.t:, aioxibaelBb 

^airlaee'jq.,, .. ...,., _ ,. .,_ „, , . ._,„. ,....„ .j ^xiol;fjs 

a;J'9feai3 orfct isvo 9^.. .. lo Jataflsd^nloqqfi »il;f jiflXirtsiiiSw 

vcf cfrisiJoa lelXsn djfu ^nsamoD fttiaarir aioacfXXa ©rW lo 


on July 5# 1935* the United States Audit Company under date of 
August 3# 1935» prepared and issued to the officeisand directors 
of the Blltmore Theatare Company a comprehensive audit of the 
books, records and accounts of the Biltmore Theatre Company for 
the period from February 1, 1933* to May 31» 1935j a copy of said ' 
audit was furnished to the plaintiff, Anna A* Goodman, prior to 
the filing of the amended complaint and was introduced in evi- 
dence herein as plaintiffs' exhibit 3j it appears from the 'con- 
parative income account, ' annexed to said audit as exhibit B there- 
of, that disbursements were made for the following expenses during 
the period from august 31, 1932, to May 3I, 1935j supplies, $113,15, 
insurance, $715.36, miscellaneous expenses $205.57* and repairs 
$1,000, lOj it further appears from the statement of cash receipts 
and disbursements that disbursements for said expenses from 
February 1, 1933* to May 31* 1935» was as follows: supplies, 
$113.15, miscellaneous expenses $204,21, repairs $954.14-, and 
insurance, $195o24« 

"19. After the issuaaee of said audit of the United 
States Audit Company, tM plaintiff, iinna A, Goodman, filed an 
amended complaint charging that during the said period from February 
1, 1933* to May 31, 1935, the defendant, Nathan Wolf, with the 
knowledge and consent of Sam Wolf, Maurice Ghoynski and Morris 
Reingold, wrongfully took credit upon the books and accounts of the 
defendant corporation for the respective sums of $204,27 for mis- 
cellaneous items, the sum of $113,15 for supplies, $954, 14 for re- 
pairs and $715*36 for insurance; the plaintiff, Anna A, Goodman, 
further contends that the corporate records were improperly kept 
in that invoices and cancelled checks were not available to sub- 
stantiate entries appearing upon the corporate books as disburse- 
ments for operating expenses* 

"The ILiSter finds that the plaintiff has failed to estab- 
lish that the defendant, Nathan Wolf, or any of the other defendants 
herein, improperly took credit upon the corporate books for miscel- 

'io i-^-J.:,i) -i^i^mj "^OLGCiCfo^,- iibiJA a&;iBU. . ; >;«^iil. Bdi x^i^l ^^ xiis^ no 
lo'i xoAgmo:.) si;ts9£i'X s^tois^Xi: . ailj lo ajxiiiocos fiaa eMoos'x ^ejiood 

-«e9* *it3^ KO^' ' Esltx^nljalq as iLt«iafl sonsf) 

^^i.£iJL$ ^2©iXqqiJe itt^l ^l XsM o^- »S£^X »it iax/siJ^tA aso-n fcolioq ertf 

aJqisD&i fi2>rj lo iaemBya&a odi fsx>i\ a^Bsqqfi taiWro/l 11 {OX,000,X$ 

Mo-rj: asansfi.' lol siaemBsnadetb iatii e^faemez'tude. lb fuouB 

^esiXqqoa :8woXl^ w t^t?-^ «i^£ Ys^*^ o^ >ii<:^-t ,X xi-^^icr»'5 

I)j:ii3 ^•I^X.-t^^^^ ailaq&-i ^Xi.-^OS? 8»«fl8qx© ai/oenjsXXeosJiffl ,Cl.£XX$ 

#*S,l^^Xir' tSOflfiiuefll 
bscJ-XfitJ ©ficJ^ lo ilbsjs bl&e lo »aiSBX/ael odi isi^lA .^X" 

'C^Bif'icis'i iBoil fcoXiaq i>Xb8 9£ij 3ii±-ijj£> iariii jfiigisilo inleXqfitoa bs&nsflus 

«itt il;Hw ^IXoW aad^^M ^dnAba^lab aril tc!t^-t %li X^'^'-i- oi »££^X ,X 

«l'i7oli fcnjB XsIentoilO eoinwBM ^IXc^ u cfn^anoo Me «}£)9Xwqod( 

adl lo zimioooB foa.s S2io, ..j xXXiilgiioi.- ,bio8fll9JT 

-oXfit ^ol ^S.-^Oiii^ lo affijJ2 svX;^Sf>q8e'i s^l 'lol aoli B'i.oqioo ^a&basteb 

-91 aol M,-^^^ ^astiXqc^ce ^ol ^X.£XX$ lo m' t ^fl»lX aifo®n.sXX90 

^ii6i2rbc.o Dxas'iiwni lol d£.(iX^ ftflfi eiXsq 

^q«ji itX'xeqQiQiw 9im &iii»OBi e^^s^dqicu f:iae;^noo nad^ixrl 

-tfira oi «Xcf®XlfiV» ;f^©s si€>w wrfosrio b^lXeonRO bas a^oXovaX Isdl fll 

-QS'ii/cftife SB a^o©<i »JBi©q[^©» exi^ uoqL' jMUia^qq-i a9li;fjif> slallnaie 

«a9SXieqX9 3£ll:tlST»QO lOl I^JldK 

~cral8© ol 6©X1f.1 sjad HUnlijXq sxIJ- lisxll zba.11 i9iSi.M ©riT" 
s^tiiiibfieleb leiri^fo osii lo x<i£ lO ^IXov/ a&dJsM ^iaaimol9b edi i&iij xislX 

laneous expenses, supplies, repairs or insurance, as alleged in 
the amended complaint; practically all of the disbursements for 
operating expenses challenged by the plaintiff were substantiated 
by the presentation and introduction in evidence of numerous in- 
voices and cancelled corporate checks which corresponded with entries 
appearing in the disbursement book of the Biltmore Theatre Company} 
said invoices and cancelled checks, together with explanatory testi- 
mony offered by the defendants herein, amply support the various 
disbursement entries appearing upon the corporate books and records 
for the period from February 1, 1933, to May 31, 1935, for mis- 
cellaneous expenses, supplies and repairs in the respective aggregate 
amounts of $204,27, $113.15 and $956«14-| said expenditures are item- 
ized in schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the report of the books, records and 
accounts of said defendant corporation prepared by Frank J. Janowiak, 
introduced in evidence as defendants* exhibit 1 of April 13, 1937. 

•*20, The invoices and cancelled checks in the possession 
of the Biltmore Theatre Company and the supplementary testimony 
offered by the defendants, substantiate disbursement entries upon 
the corporate books and records for insurance and indicate that the 
total sum ©f $715»36 was expended for that purpose, as follows? 
"195.24 from February 1, I933, to May 31, 1935> the sum of $520,12 
from October 1, 1932, to February 1, 1933j said disbursements are 
itemized in schedule 4 annexed to the said audit of Frank J. Janowiak 

"21, The plaintiff, Anns. A. Goodman, contends that the de- 
fendants, in order to Induce her to sign said agreeiaent of March 20, 
1933* promised and agreed to install a new bookkeeping system for the 
Biltmore Theatre Company and to employ a regular full-time bookkeeper 
to keep the corporate books and records, 

"22, The Master finds that at the meeting between the plain 
tiff, Anna A, Goodman, and the defendants, which occurred at the time 
of the signing of said agreement of March 20, 1933, an informal 
discussion ensued regarding the method of keeping the books and 
records of the Biltmore Theatre Companyi at said conference the 


-ftl ajjoiftoiija iO ©^fii^blv*:' si tiolit>tsboitnl bns, tioI:i&ia»Z9nq €itl& xd 
i'^pujqiaoO 9iii:^{il e^ioa^LlU ^ds lo Aood isiem&stsjdBtb sd^ fl± jni^sdqqfl 

R^a^Qoas^ ©vid'asqEstt ad^ fix aiXcqa'i ii>£u eeiXqqi.'a ^geejHaqxe feXfo^iaXXeo 
-jaslX STua eaiJKJ-j^^taeqx® bXiiS |*i»c)^f$ laas ^X.£XX$ ^^S.^-O^^ lo sJ^iukmhb 

jjLsXwon.. . feeiisqsrtq ao2:d"sioqioo ^fisl>a©l©fc ftles lo s;^xufOOOB 

jHolaesaaoq arlJ- nl aiitoario ftdXIsMses Ma ssoloval sriT .OS" 

"H;aoffilJ"a9c)" x-a^asiasX'iqjjR ©rid" b£i& x<aJBqwoD 9id-««DiiT aicaBsfXlti' 9ri;t lo 
aoqi; aali^no ^iseaEsa^mcfgiib 9i&lSaRS&fSu^ ^BdHBlaaslsb «ii^ Xd fcsiallo 

^eweXXol ea ^eaoqitrq ;^£ri^ tot b^J&flsqxo gr.w d£,^X^J« 1© atsre Xii^tod^ 

£X.0S;(:4^ lo fincjs Qdi ^i^l *X£ x^M «J ,££?X tX x^sJiide^l ffoil ^S.^^X" 

916 «5d^fl©ffi««*i«ds±fi> bi i. ^X X'sai;fid9'^: «;J ^St^X *! ledoJ-oO «oil 

IslwofljsT. ,"L liaeif lo tlbjan i»i«« ^lAfij oJ bsxaraia > 5»XjJ&«rioa at fe&slin£>il 

ari^t lol ffi©t8X2 3iii:q9saiiiood w&& a lii::.o'eai ot foaexas bnM fcealsioiq ^££^1 
i&qeoatHood ©Elj-iXnl iBli/aoi a xoXqais oJ- 3!ini3 "^siqmo'J »«d's©dT sioiacrXia 

SKsld^ srij i^A b9inif0 3o fioJul.v ^ac^xiiibflDlof) «rU Brta ,xi«cif)oot3 ,A .<itmk ^tlli 
Ismiolnl flj3 ^..£»X ^OS; i^o-cfiM lo ^flaosaisft tlaz lo ania^Xa sxlcf lo 
feiifi eafood sdrf^ aniqes^ lo bM^au: edi ^tiibi&^ei bsutaB floiaajjoalb 


suggestion v/as made and approved by the parties present to the 
effect that a new set of books should be purchased for the defend- 
ant corporation and installed under the supervision of one Reilly, 
an auditor connected with the United States Audit Company, who had 
previously rendered accounting services on behalf of the plaintiff 
and was acceptable to her, 

"The Master Finds that subsequent to the execution of said 
written agreement of March 20, 1933, a new set of books for the 
defendant corporation was accordingly purchased and set up by the 
defendant Maurice A, Ghoynski, under the supervision of said Heilly, 
of the United States iudit Companyi the corporate books and records 
consisted, among other things, of a journal, ledger and cash re- 
ceipts and disbursements book} ia addition thereto the defendants, 
Morris Reingold and Nathan Wolf, in the regular course of superin- 
tending the collection of rentals for the Biltmore Theatre Company, 
kept a tenants' record book, receipt stubs and complete memoranda 
of all rental collections, 

"The Master Finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants at any time 
understood or agreed that a regular bookkeeper would be employed on 
a full-time basis to make daily entries upon the corporate books 
and records of the Biltmore Theatre Company, 

••23, The plaintiff, Anna A, Goodman, contends that the 
record of rental collections kept by the Biltmore Theatre Company 
was laaintained in an incomplete and disorderly fashion; it appears 
that a comprehensive statement of rent collected from each of the 
lessees occupying the theatre, stores and offices in the building 
owne<£ by the defendant corporation, during the period from February, 
1933, to May, 1935, is set forth as schedule 3 of the audit of the 
corporate books and accounts prepared by the United States Audit 
Gompanyj Frank Janowiak, an aiiditor, likewise prepared detailed 
statements of the amount of rentals collected from each of said 
tenants as disclosed by entries appearing upon the books, r5Cords 

-bixelob ^it lol fessaffOTuq sd bIuo£{^ siioocf Tto &9& ^»a s iJariit d'oslle 

ilWuidlq an'^ to llsilod no eBi>lvt»e •gn±:f£WoooB b^iBbaei xleixoxveiq 

,iBsi o^ eIcf3^q»D90 8BV boa 

0riS x«^ <i^ ^92 £>*tjs b98ailonxKj x-£»a-ibrroo9B e.ew HolJ^aioqioo cJrisfcfislel) 

<5-\jIIx9H bls8 lo noiaivrt'siqwB 9fi;t lobai/ ^^'sxJYOflO ,A ©oliusM cfnsbnsleb 

■looft't bfljG eiioocf 9itQiogioo 9jrii jtHsqatoO ;JibirA Bsi^s^a beJ-luU arfcf lo 

»-9i rissd bns t®8bel ,Ij3n'ii;o(; s lo ^Q'^atr^f loriio saofia ^bsJalafloo 

^aJ^OBtoxislob eri^ o;t9i9£ld^ aoWiJobs al \:^oodi tiaemaeiudzlh baa ziqleo 

-alis^q^z lo 9aii*oo inlis-^on arid- nl ^lloft^ nsdisM bos filosnlsH eiiioM 

^X^^iJa^JSi^o^ 9id'j39il'i.' QiOEicll&. 9di rcol al6;Jnsi lo colioelloo arii golbnecf 

isijnsiotasffi sil'slqaos bos ao'jjd-a Iqluooi ^ilood bioopi ^aiOBaoS b Iqeal 

• Sfxolio9llo9 Xsindi 11b lo 

9Voiq o;f ballsl a;yi lli^Jnialq «d;t ^ari;t ebar? lod-saii exfT* 

'•MLt^ i;a6 ;Js ed-nijbnslsb Qdi ;t«£iJ ©twieblvs ©rfi lo ^tmBiobnoqeiq & xd 

ao bs'^oXqffi© ^d bXcrow teqoQiblood islirgsi e, .tsrfc^ beetac 10 booieiebrm 

83{ood ©d'^rroqiod arid^ aoqir a»iiSii?5 ^lisb o:Abl. oi a lead omlcf-IXiJl a 

,Xfl&<iBioO QiSsedT. ®toESi£tS. BtiS lo abioosn bmt 

a^ cJ-arf* sb&BSaoD ,flsKibooO ,'A shaa ^llicfnislq arlT .CS" 

TCasqaeoO aatasii? RiocctJClS ^S X«f -tqajf euoiitoslloo Xai^asi lo biooei 

alaeqqsj d'i: jifoxriasl ^Ii'^^bioBlb bfijs eiBlqmooai blb al bBatmiataei zsw 

«rid^ lo rfoG© »oil b9^&?'IXoo dasi lo ctaoEfjJ'K^^s •vlansdeiqaoo js ;farW 

jolbXii/cf »£fj^ nt a«>3lllo bnn 8»io*a 4a«idB9J'I:>' edi 3ixJtxqi/ooo sedetel 

'- -"^^' ' raoil boXieq 9ricl ;ifll'Ufi-. ^aoli zioqicc JTLsbn&l'^b «!;? x<^ ittwo 

.0 .. :;ibj;;/3 9d:t lo £ ©Xifberioa asj ilfiol isa si t^£^X ,X«M o^ t££^^ 

StbiSi\ &&i&'jFc: bftilnr 9d;J ^^ bsisqsiq 9iauooo& ba& aafoocf sd^aioqioo 

bBllat^b bfetaqeiq ©aJrwai^iX 4io;?ibxfu n:3 ^jtsiwoiuiT. Jtajsi^ (XOBqaioO 

Wiia lo tiosKQ uroil ' " ' ^ lo :^iixro«« «f^ lo a;^n9iHe;t«*e 


and accounts of the Biltmore Theaftre Company; said latter state- 
ments were introduced In evidence herein as defendants' exliibit 
45 to 54 of April 13, 1937. 

"24. Evach of the twelve lessees of the Biltmore Theatre 
Company had vnritten leases 'which specified their respective rental 
charges; from time to time during the period from February, 1933* 
to May, 1935* it became necessary to make adjustments and reductions 
in the amount of rentals called for in said leases and on many 
occasions the monthly rental due from a particular lessee was paid 
out in four or five small installments; the amount of the monthly 
rental charge due froa each of the lessees and a complete and de- 
tailed record of the rental receipts were kept by the defendant, 
Nathan T;Volf, in a tenants* record book« 

"25. The amount of rentals collected by the defendants, 
Nathan Wolf and Morris Pleingold, from each of said various tenants, 
was also recorded upon the stubs of the rent receipt books and upon 
memoranda consisting of sheafs of paper, which were introduced in 
evidence as Plaintiffs* exhibits 1 to 3 of November 12, 1937* and 
Plaintiffs* exhibit 1 of September 20, 1937; since I935 dupUcate 
rental receipts heve been retained to evidence collections; one of 
such duplicate rental re eipt books, evidencing collections of 
rentals from September 16, 1935* to December 14, 1935* was intro- 
duced in evidence herein as Defendants* Exhibit 2 of September 20, 


"The Master Finds that Maurice A« Choynski acted as the 
bookkeeper for the Biltmore Tlieatre Company and maintained its books^ 
records and accounts according to instructions given by said Reilly 
of the United States Audit Company; Reilly examined and checked 
said corporate records each month during the period from May, 1933* 
to May, 1935. 

"The Master Finds and Concludes that receipt of income and 
all disbursements of corporate funds were fully and completely recorc 
ed upoa said books, records and accounts of the Biltmore Theatre 


••^j^i^ i^^inl bX^t \%a&q,mi^ rsNtovvif »%<Ms;tIia «it 1g acfiwoosa I«es 

•^£^'X t£X Xl^qA lo *< o^ l^ 
Isd-asi sv±:to©Qaei liatli- belltooqe lisflcfvr aseeei aecfd-Jttrw b«ri x^BqesoO 

-^^{c ISO b^gj s&SQdl £>1&8 aJ; 'xol bollao slj»iu»^ le ^uhmu ad^ al 

Xlii-txiofit 9xii lo iasfosm ^i ;«iesiffiIXj3*a«i ilsiae avll to •wot at itso 
-©& bas s^eXqiEoo s fen® sssaesi 9tt) "io doa® flk>^ «ff& »lia^ Imiadt 

^awajsixed" ajyolisv 5xi*8 la rfsa© BW'Sl ,M©*aiaa' eliiolS iins 1Xo\"f iijari;Ji5a 

iioqj3 Ms a3ioo<J ^qi^oei ^xist^ ©lit to 8<te*s eri^t noq*/ fjsbicQpai osXb asw 

aJt boouboid-fxl ®t©w rfairitfsr ^leqaq Io ateaxla 'to gfiiJ- 2 ierfoo ^J&fisrtQBMi 

A«« t^£^X tSX lecfffi^voM Io i g^ I a^^ii^iitx© » 8'5-lJfc^iilAX^ ns sansblira 

s^ffloXXqj^b ~<t^i. »o«jc8 '^^£^'1 «0S T^xifiee^q^e Io X ^tioflxtxe »a'i1X;tniBX<I 

"^ ©no jQaoi#o©Iloo ©SteCKjJ&iva e;f £)<5>iSl3C)'©T: i!ii©»<J f>rv&£i eJ-qtlsosi X.«i*flei 

Io ajtto.'L;*a«XXoo ^loas^hlvn) iaiLoo4 ;tqi:6:.ei X.«d'fl»i s>;^3»ll!?i/l> rfsjja 

-oi.t ai 8SW ^«I£?I *>! i9«teieo®C oJ- ^c;£^X ^oX i»^©crq«a aioil aXs^tiis'i 

^sJloocf 2*X benifiitflJLaia tos -^cnuaqiHoO sn*«©(i'I eioad-Xia: ad;)- 10I i^qeeMooti 

JbeaCosrio i)ajs 6G«xjafi.xe xXX-t®^ ^^jSa<{boO tlbisJi 8»;?**a h^^lnU ©ili Io 
V .i^'X ^v'iM laonl hoti^q &Ai ^tUiub xlJnois lioa© abtooei •J-sioqioo bX«fi 

.<J£ei aaM o^ 
LfLo f-moofiJ: Io ^qX939i i&Ai sefiuvXonoO fine 8J&ni''i. i©;fa£iK wiT" 


Company and honestly kept; said corporate records, although 
apparently not maintained according to the best accounting prac- 
tice^ were nevertheless complete, reasonably adequate and adapted 
to the type of business carried on by said corporation, namely, 
the operation of OBie improved parcel of business property involving 
the collection of monthly rentals from twelve lessees; said records 
and accounts substantially reflect all items of receipt and dis- 
bursement and are corroborated by supporting invoices and cancolled 
checks. No fraud in that respect is shown by record, 

"26. No bond register was maintained as a part of the 
bookkeeping system of the Biltmore Theatre Company from February, 
1933* to May, 1935* although defendants' witness Janowiak testified 
that a bond register should have been installed. The plaintiff, 
Anna A, Goodman, has failed to establish that said omission was 
due to any wrongful motive on the part of any of the defendants 
or resulted In ai:^ injury to the stockholders; all expenditures of 
corporate funds on account of said junior mortgage bonds were 
properly made and disbursements in retirement of such bonds were 
accompanied by their surrender and cancellation; corporate checks 
presently issued in payment of interest and principal due on any 
of said bonds are marked Yi/ith tne number identifying the particular 
bonds to which said payments are applicable, 

•♦The Master Finds and Concludes that the books, records 
and accounts of the Biltmore Theatre Company were kept and maintained 
by the defendants in an honest and reasonably complete and intelli- 
gible manner; and the plaintiff, ^ima A, Cjoodman, has failed to es- 
tablish that said corporate records contained any false or fraudu- 
lent entries and has failed to establish that any of the defendants 
acted improperly in the matter of handling of corporate accounts, 

"27* Pursuant to the request and with the acquiescence 
of the other officers and directors, the defendant, Maurice A, 

Choynski, devoted approximately three hours each week in the per- 
formance of bookkeeping services for the Biltmore Theatre Company; 

ii§jocu-:j.r..5 t^ii^^i. nod baa r/ojiqfaoQ 

3nivXovrLt x^'i^qoiq aiisniaij i. " > aolitii&qo 9tii 

♦ vj'r >ijai xcf fr^c.ic, ..i i^i.oqiio-1 li-jsul* El bvanl oil .eiosxlo 


,,^1*0/10 -stOtoviiwiO J 9'iJsaxi'i ij'ioiaJ-XlS arid lo iuo^texa giilqeeibloocf 

eiaabnsl' isq adi ao Bvtiosa lulgaovn ^ob o;t oub 

lo Q&'wiUi£iBiij.i. kiauloii^ooi & 94^^ oi x'wlaJ: yflM ai bQiSjizen 10 

SI8W eaaod ^^sa^J'^Lom loXntft bl&B lo d^xmosoB ao &bmst eiBioqioo 

»19W aJbjaod xis; ;i©©©iXo ; ..asnsaijucfeib £>£t& •JOfiC xXisqonq 

S2l:^:)iio &iB'iQ%-xoo ^aoH &lls&nj&9 i^as idtosiru^s iJtwdi \ci l)eX£U»qinocofi 

Tjae no s^b lnqXJm.i%u bm& iasi©., a!5«Gncsq b1 b^is^zl -^Xc^nesenqj; 

iijXi;oi;tiaq 9£iJ ^tU^'i-t^^^'^J'^ i&^amm «tflw jii^fii ©ie -ebaod 6i£a lo 

« dXdiSoXXqqB 9-x^ «^n:»M\;j5% bias, dolctfi oi abaod 

9fl±BJ"nlflef feajs iq^a s'lmi ■^BqmoO »^#a«lT ©lowJ-XiS ©ri;f lo a^tox/ooos fui^ 

-IXXsi^nX Jbxta »^«Xti£iO0 x-l^*ififioa-i&i I>£1*j ;}«®nojri ob at ^Jra&baBlBb ad^ xcf 

-t9 oi bsll&l a,3il ,iU3Ci , t tJUaiiiXq ©litf ^Oa i^sunufc aXtfl;^ 

"SJbu^ii'i 10 aaXiil ■^yi£ benxfidrioo sbiooei ^dtisioqioo iiuis ^siW delXcf«;t 

eiiaMbafAii>b esti lo \^u j£»£lJ ji^tl^aiZfi oJ- l)9XiAl 3d£i Jcxie z^l'iia.^ iael 

^u^tWQiioa ai^ioqioo lo 3fixXi>ixsxi I0 ^©J-;}sis; 9x£cf jai; ^XndqoiqiLt beiOB 

,A soX'iJU'.a ^oajsMelsi) sxid" ^aaocfosilb ba& s'iasXllo %@iiio edi lo 
-leq gifiJ al jieew xioij© eiaoii sfeirij \X9d^Bisljioiqq;i5 l)«*ov»b ^ialefrcodO 


on August 31, 1934, the sum of $360,00, representing compensation 
for said services at the rate of $5*00 per week for the preceding 
seventy-two weeks, was charged upon the corporate records as ^}x& 
and owing to Choynski; said sum of $360,00 had not been paid to 
Choynski at the time of the hearing held herein; the defendants, 
Nathan Wolf and Morris Reingold, granted Choynski the authority 
to take credit for said sum of $360,00 in recognition of the book- 
keeping services which were performed for the benefit of the 
Biltmore Theatre Company; it does not appear that there had been 
any specific agreement to pay Choynski the sum of $5 •00 P®r week 
at any time prior to August 31> 19 34-, nor was any corporate resolu- 
tion formally adopted by the board of directors approving said 
allowance , 

"28, Under date of March 20, 1933, Anna A, Goodman and 
Walter S, Auerbach entered into a certain written agreement with 
Maurice A, Choynski, Morris Reingold, Nathan l^lf and Sam Kolf, 
wherein it was provided, among other things, that each of said 
persons would cast their vote, as stockholders and directors of 
the Biltmore Theatre Company, for the election of Choynski as 
Secretary, Reingold as President and Goodman as Vice-President; 
said agreement further provided that each of said persons should 
serve as said officers without compensation; the plaintiff, Anna 
A, Goodman, contends that the defendant, Maurice A. Choynski, 
acted as secretary of the Biltmore Theatre Company at the time 
he rendered said bookkeeping services and is accordingly not 
entitled to receive any compensation therefor, 

"29, The record does not disclose tliat bookkeeping ser- 
vices were to be rendered by the said defendant, I^iaurice A, Choynski, 
in his capacity of secretary, and the Master Finds that the book- 
keeping services rendered by the defendant, kaurice A. Choynski, 
inured to the benefit of the Biltmore Theatre Company and were 
performed outside of the scope of his duties as an officer and 
director of said corporation; and that the sum of $5.00 per week 

jttoi^Bexisqfiaoo 3iii:Miee9iq©i ,00«0d£,$ lo ans SjcW <»-^£^X tX£ ^sjjjii-; no 
S«Ui»99e^q arij io1 i^sow i'jxi 00,^$' lo ®:fBi sri* S& saoiviea 61s8 lol 

o:f feiisq it«>©<f ioa bail 00,0^£$ lo isj:fs foisa jiMan'^Oiir' od^ sniwo bos 

Y:fiioilJi:?.3 9^* IArh^oAO fcuicsns ^biosnl®!-! aiirioM fons llow oailisH 

9jii to Stlene^ Bd:i io1 b^ei'^QtrBq Bimf doifi?/ gsolvisa gniqssji 
a©«cf Liid »iejcf;? ;}-sd,t *ij»sqc.; cJoii 2io.& Ji jTcnBq«oO ©ts^taerfT eiooilia 

-uXoas'i $;fj6i©qio9 tas sow icn ^^C^'X ^I£ ^fiwsxiA o:f loliq eiil^ XOb ia 
bt&a grslvo'igqjs 2i©^o»^l& lo b'ljBOCJ ^licf x<3 6©iqoiiis -H^XIaffliol noli 

^lioSRi awe. f>aa 1I(*^ nsri^ja^ ^bloanlsfi eliiOiii-i ^iafaxiYoriO ,A oolowiiii 

felitja lo xioiss ifjsri^ ^sgfllri^ i^rWo gno/ca ,fcel)lvoiq aaw ;Ji aterndw 

lo a'iat5«i±l) fens aieMoitrfjsod^s a^s ^^^iov ilorli cfeso fcluow enoEiaq 

a A isfsiTE ofi 3 lo xiGld^osI© sri;t lol ,-s;HiiqffioO si;tBefrr ©tcoincJ-Il?] sxi^t 

i:faoJ&ia(!i*i^«-«ii)lV e« susmfcocO fens ;J'«i5il)le»i^ b& blosnioi? ^x^JBjsioeS 

Mirofla aaos'rsq bl&a Jo rfoss cfsild^ 5©6±voiq •i^:^'ixj1 iaoaeftiaB blsa 

snoA. ,lli:;tniBlq sdi j/iolJ'Beasqifloo il/otl^Jtw eieolllo felj^iS ea •▼tea 

flssli- arid' :tB t^isqiEoO eicffiSxiT eioatctllSf srfd- lo ^iB;t8ios« 3£ Jb©;tOB 
c^ofJ ■v:l3nl:f)*fvto£i al Mb asoivtsa aaiqsojWood 61*j8 bdiefinsi ari 
.lol^^^&f sol^asrcuqiBoo x^ts •vlsosa o:f b»imn9 
-isfi Salqgoibiood' ;tsxlj' ©aoloall) ioit asob b^oosi sriT .^^ 

-ifoocf ©dd- j£il;t sfejoi^ iscTe ,«. ..« ...., ,\^^.ji9ia©a lo -^^loiqeo elri al 

^lateuvoilO ,A ©filijj^Iia ^ixm? 'f-'^-'^- -■n'^ --h 6©t©bxi€*i aooiviee §nlqs9ii 

©tow 5xia ipasqaoO ^listu -.o ..L^ ;::*.;j- lo il1ea@4 9di oJ beival 

fcnjB itjolllo as aj55 89i;J^x/b elii lo «qoo8 ari:f lo sblicfift} bsHnolisq 


was not an unreasonable charge for the type of services so 

"The Master Finds and Concludes that said sum of $360 .00, 
allowed as compensation to Maurice A, Choynski, was not unreason- 
able and constituted a matter of corporate policy on the part of 
the managing officers and directors which was free from any wrong- 
doing; said allowance does not constitute oppressive, illegal or 
fraudulent conduct entitling the plaintiff, Anna A, Goodman, to 
any equitable relief in this proceeding, 

"30, On May 1, 1934, the cash account of the Biltmore 
Theatre Company was credited with the sum of $167.82} prior to 
said date said sum of money had belonged to tlie Biltmore Theatre 
Company and had been temporarily deposited, as a matter of con- 
venience in the beuak account of the Vision Theatre, maintained 
at the United American Trust & Savings Bank, prior to May 1, 1934-^ 
said bank closed its doors and ceased doing business and said sum 
of $167.82 was lost to the Biltmore Theatre Company* 

"31« The plaintiff, Anna A, Goodman, contends that the 
board of directors of the Biltmore Theatre Company at no time 
adopted a resolution permitting the deposit of its corporate funds 
in said bank account of the ¥ision Theatre; and the plaintiff 
further maintains that the defendants should be required to reimburse 
the Biltmore Theatre Company for said sum of $167«82* 

"32. During the period of five or six years prior to the 
closing of the United American Trust and Savings Bank the officers 
of the Biltmore Theatre Company customarily made deposits of small 
rental collections during each month in said bank account of the 
Vision Theatre; said practice had originat'3d i->.t a time w ien the 
plaintiff, Anna A. Goodman, owned approximately a 'one-sixth in- 
terest* in the Vision Theatre v;hich she disposed of on or about l.larch 
20, 1933; at the end of each month the funds of the Biltmore Theatre 
Company, v.hich had accumulated in said account, vvere withdrawn and 
deposited in the bank account of the Biltmore Theatre Company in the 

t - » 


:: to ffiCB fclae i Brief a®5j;;IonoO £tfi£ abaJf'i i»i^aii fidi" 

-noasaicttr :tofi R^r^ ^LA^aKodO .A eolia^sM oi lioiifsaaeqiaoo z& bsvoLL^ 

"io ;fisq dxl;t no ijolicwi sd^iaioqioo lo i«j,t»fli e i>f)tJj;i'lct«aoo bris &X«J« 

-gnoT^ ^B fiioil »»Tt'i esw rislriw zioi o&'i±b ban ataoxllo axilaansfa srW 

^o IsaeXXi ^svlaasiqqo ©ixfcfl^fixioo ofl aaoi) eaaswolla fiise ji^nlob 

o,t tfi»fitf>ooS .A fliiflA ^lliiniisXq adi •sall:ma.& iaubaoo ^a^SMbuait 

,SJDcl099Oonq axriit al laXXsi «^XtfB^Xups -^co* 

9ioiB:/XXa srii Io ^twoooB da so ©iti f^£?X ,X i^aM aO .Ot" 

CKt loiiq jS8,^dX^ lo fisira &£ii dilv Jbsilbsio 8)aw toa<«©^ ^i^AOfiT 

©!i:»8©fIT ©loiaJXi?! 9^ o:^ be^aol&d baA '^mtom lo e»e fc±j»a e^a* 6tae 

-fioo lo lecTcTsffi s as ^fje^laoqeb '^cXXtfiioqiaed- nssd obtI line xoaqaoD 

boxiis^itiaKi ^©id-jasrii jkoXsIV ad^T lo ;JmfoooQ Jiaacf ©ri:^ ni: ©onsinev 

^4^t.?X ^X ^sU o^ loiiq <524ixsB: aaaXv^B & ;Jaxi"ii iUBoiissA b©4-JtnU Qdi itk 

aura blfis &jts eaanlawd saXob b9Sja®o fiHjB sioob e;ti bsaoXo ^aad bXiia 

.^naqisoO ©^isaril siofiKfXia sd^ o^ taoX auw S8«^'0X$ lo 

9Ai j&di zbaainoo ^riBjobooO ,A smiA ^lllJtftiuXq arfT .X£*' 

9mii ofi cfB XHsqiiK)0 ai^ssiiT eioaufXie a££;t lo EioJoeiXfe lo fexsorf 

3bfUfl 9^sioqiGO k:)'! 'io cTxaoqob ©fld' gfiiJ,tiBre©q aoJ:d-oX08«i b bs^qobfi 

llWniBXq 9ti:i ba& \^^iz9d'i noial'7 sAS lo ;^iijjo&oc jlnsef bl:^B aX 

ea'iXfcfal»*r a^ feeili^psi ©C bXuoicia 8C^ttsbllelsb »iiif *&d* esiL£ia±&i& iQiiiiul 

.SS.^oXfa 'to ffiua bJtaa lot ^ajsqaxjC »x**«il'i: siofii^I-ta 9di 

Qtii o^ •ioiiq ertBe-^ acXe *io ®vil lo boiioq &ti^ ^aliud .S^" 

8'i90lllo 9rf;t :to«e esnivsg bnB d^einf flsaliooA bw^i^^ ^di lo anxaoXo 

XXsaia lo R^isoqsb sbsar YXtteiBocrsifO -^jaaqraoO di^sarii- e^iomiXlH ectt lo 

■sffj- lo isiVoooB Jinsd folsa nl rid-noHi dos9 aniiab autoiJ-aolXoo Xscfnei 

aitf naw 8ffil.t £ *t5 b^J'atilsiio baiS soi^Dt^iq iilse lei^Bsdl rioiaXV 

-ai ii^-xla-eflo' b ■^Xt^'Ctsfiilxo'ivqr. bsii?ro <nsafeo©fj ^11 aboA ^lll;)'nXsXq 

rioi«.M ;tirocfa 10 no lo beaoqaxi) t*ii« rioMv/ aiJ^iiSifJ aoXaiV ©rfif sU *i%9i9^ 

sictsariY s^ouK^Xia sxfi lo abmrl BdS dMom doBB lo bao ari^ ^a l££?X ^OS 


National Bank of the Republic j the United American Trust & Savings 
Bank was more conveniently located for the making of small daily 
deposits of rentals and said funds were accordingly kept in said 
account temporarily until they could be placed in the regular cor- 
porate bank account, 

•*The Master Finds and Concludes that the praetlce of making 
said temporary deposits of small rental collections of the ijiltmore 
Theatre Company while irregular, is not attributable to any fraud or 
wrongdoing on the part of any of the defendants; said deposits were 
temporary in nature and for purposes of safe-keepingj the defendants 
should not be required to reimburse the Biltiuore Theatre Company 
for said sum of $167, 82» 

"BS* After the filing of the amended complaint, the de- 
fendants as Eianaging officers of the Biltmore Tlieatre Company, 
caused said corporation to pay out r,he sum of $650,00 to the United 
States Audit Company for the preparation of its audit of the books, 
records, and accounts of the Biltmore Theatre Cou^pany, and to pay 
the sum of $500,00 on account of attorney's fees of counsel employed 
to defend the present litigationj the Biltmore Theatre Company had 
paid various other sums of money for stenographic charges and other 
expenses incidental to the defense of the present suit, 

"The Master Finds and Concludes that the defendants, as the 

managing officers of the Biltmore Theatre Company, were entitled to 

employ attorneys to represent and defend the defendant corporation 

and to resist the charges made by the plaintiff, Anna A, Goodman, 

in the amended complaint; and said defendants were likewise authorized 

to enlist the services of auditors and accountants^repare the audits 

introduced in evidence herein and to pay reasonable compenst.tion there 

••The Master Finds and Concludes that the plaintiff, Anna A, 
Goodman, has failed to establish that any of the defendants, to- 
gether constituting the majority stockholders and managing officers 
and directors of the Biltmore Companyj> at any time entered into a 


xXlaf) Xi ijtljisa 9ri;t lol becfsooX TcXd^fioiQevnoo ea«K esw ileuS 

bjfcfia Hi i nibiooDs s>iem sbanl blatu bne> aleiaei lo ad-leoqeb 

-iCG ^ -i -osiq 9d filjjoo "x^rf^ Xt&ms AcXi"ii3ioqM©^ 3"mj«joo« 

a£toxJ-o©XIoo Xad'Hsi XXscie lo e&leoqmb xiftiEoqise^ bXisi 

TofjMKtt Xi^-s od oXtfsd-irdlicr^s ^cmi ei ^iBXi-raei^i ellrfw -^jnfiqaoO M:;^B©rfT 

91QW a^tlaoqsb blaz laiaQbaQleb sxfcT lo "^fe lo :iiBq *£ii no salofcino-rw 

zia.&ba9T[eb sdj i>;aJ:qoe3»-'©*i ; aoq-x&q 1©1 bas ertrJeii at xiBtoqmBS 

TjjxsqffioO ©i;fs©rIX" eioa;.^!.: -aiifcfiui©! a* l>&ii»p«*t 9d ioa bXxroria 

^S8'«^J<)f$ Ho msjt hlBB lol 
-e ^ riljsXqinoo I): bnoiSB OfW lo ainXXil edi leJ'i •. ,^£'' 

♦""C^AttJaoC; ei^Mi&.u':^ »iOi4^Xxa ^Li Jo aisalllo §.g±3aBB;n eu tSazbaet 

jXnU odvf o* ©0«ac^^« lo «CB€ 9tffv ^1/0 veq oj* aoM^mx'ioo Mbs bscxreo 

tdiiootf tialt lo ilbii ■ .l:f3iAqeiq srio tol ^flsqeoO flSmk ^9t&f<i 

■^jsq ou Mo tYxisqiuoO arK^eedT siead'Xl fi 9rl# lo ectcocfooos Jbios ^ebioosi 

bs^oXqcTS Xeaajjoo lo essl s»x®a'ioi^>^s lo ctiix/oaoB no 00,00^^ lo msz eiii 

borl ^coBqiaoO o'rf:^,^ •■ .XX3 WW' 'iiioXc^s8i;tiX rfnsesTLq sfj baslsb o^ 

.-ixio^^o ca/i ae;-':; 3iSoi3[**s i:©l^©aom lo ssij^e asriJo fixjoitav blsq 

nes^Tct ©ri;}- lo ©aii«tl©ii ndi o& lstmfibi.&a± eeansqx© 

c. inaei9» ^ifiSBqcoO sitaeiiT 0io«J^Xld 9£i^ '?© eie^lll© ■^t^^&nBK 

noid^s'ioq-ioo ja.ii)jaoi9i> i&lofci bBL& d^neesiqe^ o^ «i(0^«ol:tB xoXqms 

iBul^otiJiis saXwaiiiX aiaw aj-nsbixslsfe fslaa 5ns (d-sljRlqraoo 6«i»Mr£ 9dS at 

zSlbve, odi 9iiiq9iq^a^n«j:fiirco;.B fea^ aioc^iJbjjB lo ascivn^g exii ;tai:Xxs© o;t 

>n9j .t aoXJ^- aueqfaoo sXcfanosBei xaq i*);? Set* ni^^erl 9oi5®ftiv« Hi fc»ouE)on:tiii 


•A «BHA ^HX^^iUsXq dn^ ;)'S£[;t as^^XonoO bas aJCdsXf is^^ejaJ^ siiT" 

^ :ta&ixaBleb ©rf^ lo xos ^«£i^ xialXde^as o;J ^©XXbI aiiri ^nefflfcooO 

ensoJtllo saX^^ifiJ^ fccuti aiebXoriiioo;}E Aj;d^lioti3fit aycU galcfi/J-iJ^sfioo isri-taa 


conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff or any other stockholders of 
their rights and interests in said corporation; and that the plain- 
tiff has wholly failed to establish that any of said defendants were 
guilty of fraud or illegal or oppressive conduct, or tiiat any of 
their acts in superintending the management of corporate affairs 
warranted the appointment of a receiver for the Biltmore Theatre 
Company or entitled the plaintiff to any of the equitable relief 
sought in the amended complaint, 

"In Conclusion, the Master Recomiiends the entry of a decree 
in accordance with the findings hereinabove set out, dismissing the 
amended complaint for want of equity," 

Mrs. Goodman, alone, filed objections to the master's report^ 
During the hearing before the trial court upon the exceptions to the 
master's report Mr, Levi ton, at the opening of his argument on behalf 
of defendants, addressed Mr, Van Ness, one of the attorneys for Mrs, 
Goodman, as follows: "I really would like to have you answer one 
question. Do you contend that anywhere in this record there has been 
proof of any one fraudulent disbursement?" to which inquiry Mr, Van 
Ness replied: "I aaant to mention that« I am sorry I did not. There 
are allegations in the bill, you • Honor, that there was some fraud 
and that there was some conspiracy, and these other allegations that 
I have mentioned, that the books were not kept In a proper way so 
that Ae could obtain a true statement of the financial condition of 
the company, With reference to the item of fraud, I want to say this, 
in Justice to counsel and the defendants, that there was no evidence 
that there had been any stealing or any actual misappropriation of 
funds by the defendants, oo, I am not making any contention in my 
argument before your Honor that there was, so far as could be deter- 
mined, any actual v/rongdoing. The o nly thing I co nten d, it was 
i ncompetency in keeping their bookst " wherei^Ctt, Mr. Levi ton stated: 
"Ifell, you see, your Honor, that clears this case immediately of a 
lot of extraneous issues," It is to be noted that Mrs. Goodman, 


-r:i:.ttlq .o.ij j j^ij bus. iTiol:}zioqioo bi&9 At niik&'ii»^at basi s^rfaJri ilBdi 
I „ , . 10 l£S£?Xll: 10 bti&ft lo t^Ilu3 

,^nl'(X(ui-oo h&ha&im arli at. :Ul- uos 
^i^■■r'■■ .___,. -_.. ,-oJtetfXoixoO nP 

o ""'•' •:'-'* --';<;'■ ui^. ^„<i»l ns? ,iM &©88sif)foi5 nS^nstas'tsb lo 

^^'.L': Jblifow -"A —■•- '^'■' r'T'^oIIol 26 ^naaifcoo-n 
.ii eaejdvn^i j.,j:.: i..ii;'jiiuL' i/ox oCT .jfiol^teexju 

U'. , /ii.j^i... 1 "':'■- ,--^- -tf>Xrf3i;j3il eno yjXB lo looiq 

9*1:;/;... ,.;oi- ".'" :' ^ .;iv,>r ud ia&mn P :l>©ilqei 283H 

oa '4 .^v '- ^,u'_ .^:-- vIoj: ' " ^'aotiaem evad I 

'lO noi^ifcnc a;.-! :;3Cicj..w .. liliiJdo 5It/oo av: djsricf 

^axilJr 1^8 03 iu^;. J. ^bjjfiil lo liaJ-i ©ifi o:f iOii^ic-la^ xi:fiW ^yx^Bii&oo sdi 

mm^bhrs oa sew ' ^ .'xijejbnalsjb adcT feaa Xeexmoo oi eolibul al 

lo noxi ol'iqo'iqi^^itiLu. i^ijCco aj«£ io aitlXxj©;tE Xiis ofi&d b&si 9i&di i'ariJ 

XJC nx aoljnscfnoo "^ob 3fi;jfcijsBi d'da sm ,_: .a^fnefenslefc' ©ffd' "^tf abassi 

-'loieb ffcf bXifCo ae i«l oa ,8bw s^sild jtulo uoaoE lijox eiolsdf J-nsmiJSifi 

-g:aw.. Ji. ^bfiplnoo I...7m.JUU yXh o sidl' . anJtotsnoiv; XjbuJob ^xub tbaalM 

l9*«iii>©4aai: OBJEi ^..moU -uiox ^esa uox ^XXfifif" 

, boctort 9d o^ a± :fl ".Batfash aMfjsnf.tixfl lo *qI 


shortly after the aforesaid statement was made by her attorney, 
caused other attorneys to be substituted as her attorneys, When 
the suit was filed, Messrs, Wilhartz, liirsch & c^chanfarber 
represented her. During the trial before the master and the 
trial court Messrs, Huiamer & Jlumiiier represented her. She is 
represented in this court by a third set of attorneys. There 
were three audits made of the books of the Theatre Company. The 
first one was made by Mr, Heilly, of the United States Audit 
Company, an employee of the husband of Mrs, Goodman, Mr. and 
Mrs, Goodman recomiaended to the original defendants that Reilly 
make a check and audit of the books, and Reilly, thereafter, did 
make a check and audit ten to fifteen times a year. Later Mrs, 
Goodman employed ^Ir, Rubel to audit the books. Still later sh0 
employed Mr, Samels to audit the books. Plaintiff's present 
counsel, in this court, admit that she was unable to prove that 
the original defendants had been guilty of actual dishonesty. The 
original and amended ctMaplaints charge that the original defendants 
entered into a conspiracy to deprive the other stockiiolders of their 
right and interest as such stockiiolders and to unlawfully exploit 
such corporation and divert its assets for their own benefit. The 
complaints make repeated charges of fraud against the original 
defendants, and it was upon these charges that plaintiffs based 
their right to an accounting and to have a receiver appointed for 
the Theatre Company, Having utterly failed to sustain the serious 
charges she made in the original and amended complaints, plaintiff 
now seeks to evade the payment of the costs of the suit by contending 
that her suit inured to the benefit of the scockholders. She filed 
many objections to the report of the master, but her counsel have 
not seen fit to incorporate them in the abstract, nor is any refer- 
ence made in plaintiff's brief and argument to the said objections. 
As defendants argue, such action on the part of plaintiff 
practically amounts to an abandonment of all of the objections 
made to the report. Mrs, Goodman now questions three items upon 


J'l&ci^ a9c'-«d8 f^j-JbaU srict "io ^^cIIiaH .tH -^cf sfosa a aw sxio ctaiil 
XLLlfih iBti:i BfSLBtai&l&'D lQtil%lio s<tiJf oi bo5fl©rniKOO«i nBa±>ooO .aiM 

sda 5. ; r/:"^ .aaloocJ ©rid' ctt&ujs et l^tiufi ,iK bsxo-tqfiie nBofiooa 

ctriocii.'ii E * I'lijxiisX^ .eaioocf dd;J ^l&Us oS cl«siaE ."rf! fco^olqais 

j.-iifij Bvoiq oJ- sIdBf.i; 23W aria icniS iteabs. ^iiuoo aM:J ill ^Xsamroo 

^lsd;t xo 8^«l)l0il3lood'2 lerict vlttqsfc od x^&ilq&aot) a od^nl 59i3;tno 

d^lolqxe ■^IJjblWiaJjiJj oi m;^ a'i.o£)XoitJi©ed'a ris^»8 e.»-: dcsis^al £>il6 itrfsli 
«dT •3'llatfioa' fiwo liSilJ 'xol s^saae s^t :fievib baa aolis*io<cioo rioxrr; 

b#ai4<a a1:1:i:;Jfli.j8l4 d-j3fJc|- eoaiano »e®ii^ aoqi/ fusn it baa ^sismbaeli^b 

'iCi bffijflloffqB lovlooei i> sJVjBd ©^ feHM sxijtifii/eo®* as ot ^rfsl" lisricf 

«xmi*r5>e sri^ £ii:K;t^,iaa oJ dbIIbI x£ioS;is! ^nlvaH ,^5es«[BioO •^^sedT 9ifJ 

llld-iiieXq ^s^niijiqfljoo fodl'iiegsa £>jat« X.«fiislic ©d:f ul »fea« flttfa t»jiBii« 

Scil>fi«^noo ^</ itoc efCj "io eJ'aoo «tfi;t 'io Jfitstar^jiK? &di ©fesve at ci[»*c won 

feeXll 9^3 ,a^»&XQrijCi>©d'fi a«l;J lo iilsaed ®dj ex? bf'vTL'Hl: :tJLfJ8 neri *Bjrf;t 

llijnXfiXq "io tiaq Qtii ao «ox*as ilsiJ^e ^oss&'tsi &iaab£ie'ieb al 
a£ioX;t9<^t<^<3 ^^^ 'io XXi& lo ;}-ii@jiiuxo£>/i£efi& rus o;t Btaucma xXXaoX^osio 


the books of tlie Theata»e Company, We find no substantial merit 
in this complaint. There is force in the contention of defend- 
ants that Mrs. Goodman is carrying on the Instant proceeding 
solely to harass and annoy the Theatre Company and its officers 
and directors, Vihen her counsel conceded, before the trial 
court, that there was no evidence to prove any actual wrongdoing 
by the original defendants and that the only charge plaintiff 
could make, under the proof, was incompetency in keeping the 
books, plaintiff should have voluntarily dismissed the suit, 
especially in view of the fact that she was a director and 
Vice-President of the Company and had full access to its books 
of account. Walter S. Auerbach, her son, was also a director in 
the company. 

After a careful examination of the rocord, we find our- 
selves in full accord with the findings and conclusions of the 
master and the decree of the trial court. There is no merit 
in the instant appeal, and the decreo of the Circuit court of 
Cook county is afiirmed, 


Friend, P. J,, and Sullivan, J,, concur^ 

-jiii&& li^lcxityjciiu.^ on taxi Sv .^;iiBqiao f>ij£snv. -diio lO cijir.oa adct 
saJ:fc©90O!iq ^tuaisiit c^d& jeio gxijhcaiiio el; matibooQ ,3121 cfadd- aJa* 

jgalobsnoTW L&jsii on asw ©laxij ;tBrid' ^;f7Xfoo 

^^ 3Xilqs9>i fli >j;3isoJ'8qfiiooit ^'iooiq sdJ 'Xflfcau ,sj[flii blJiroo 

fcfUi ic; ^iCf ^06l 9fW Ito W9lv al xXIisloeqea 

83iood ^- .isriiu^ lifci'l iii^ £ffi[B ■'josqaioO arid- lo j'jasfeissi^i-.solT' 

aJt ^od^oa-iiv. o oai« as^w ^£toa ^©xi ^rioBtf'xeirA ,8 rra^Xj^ .iiSJUooos lo 

•'ptsquioo «d;f 

9££j 'io anoxai/Xono- jalbctjit ©rf;^ dilw Motjos IXifl al airlsa 

"io d-xuo:^ ^iiJaiiO ;^4u "io »««ca©i) eiii baa ^lasqqB d^CBjani «£i3^ al 

♦Jaeccxl'ilfl ai xctaiioo ifooO 

*it;saoo J.I. ^aj8Vi:lJUf& btta ^*^ ,9; ^ba©±TC^ 

41203 / 



_^^^^^,^,,,,,^„«.._™. *va"actioii to recover damages for personal injuries 
sustained by plaintiff when she fell on the sidewalk just 
adjacent to the curb at the northeast corner of Western avenue 
and Madison street, Chicago, A jury returned a verdict finding 
defendant guilty and assessing plaintiff's damages at the sua 
of $16,000«. Motions of defendant for a directed verdict and 
for a new trial were denied and defendant appeals from a 
judgment entered upon the verdict. 

No point is made upon the pleadings. The complaint 
alleges, inter alia^ "that defendant, not regarding its duty 
in that behalf, on to-wit, September I9, 1937 » and prior thereto 
there v.-rongfully and negligently suffered and permitted said 
street curbing to be and remain in a bad and unsafe condition 
and repair, allowing said curbing to become chipped, broken, 
crumbled and uneven; that plaintiff while stepping traa the 
surface of West Madison street, a point to-v/it about fifteen 
feet east of the east curb of North i^estem avenue onto the 
sidewalk along the north side of vVest Madison street, unavoidably 
and necessarily stepped on said curbing along said street and 
immediately adjacent to said sidewalk as afore-described and 
while in the exercise of due care for her own safety, then and 
there was caused to trip and stumble by reason of said broken 
and uneven condition of said curbing, the result of defendant's 
aforesaid negligence, and she was thereby thrown and fell to and 
upon the ground with great force and violence; that the defendant 


;faj:;t >:i.ew*bi:8 ^ricf so Xisi srie usrlw m^fnJtfilq xd baal&iztsz 

aixlfenii iolbiBv a ibsn-iiTj'eT vi^^'t A ^oasoJtdO ^j-ssid-e noeibsM bas 

sisjs Qfii eta 203Bisijc;- ^iii38988fi JboxB x^XlJJS ;tnfiii>n9l9l) 

fcfls ;to±Jb29V l>9d^£>9iil) J6 lol d^xisliflslei) lo anoWoK « 000^^1$ lo 

£ ffloil alBsqqH d-osfinslsf) bna belaeb eiew Isli;J wan « lol 

^ioib'iav ^£ ) xioqu b^iQ^iae iasetiibsJl 

ial&iqBiOO ©xiT .asnlbsslq Bdi aoqv oham &t dnloq oM 

x;fub a-Ji. aiilb^ds^-x i'oa ^:f£iabae1eb *bxW" tAU^ tfiaX ,298911^ 

o^sisjdcr loiiq bas3 t^£^'X ,^1 isdffisctqea ^:H^w-aJ- no ^llatied tadJ al 

bias f)9:t:J Imieq fine bsiolxife xid-nstallaofl boa xlLt/l^oTit sradi 

stetitkaoo eluztw has bsd r, nx nlGiii-vi Siab otf ©;:>• BOitfii/o i'e»n;f8 

arUt ®o^l giilqqs^a ©Xij-w " " ttnlslq ^fsri^ (neveiur &ob £>9Xcf£Qx;io 

nsQeJ-lJ:! cfijocfis d-iw-od^ J^n^.,., ^Jssic^a nofiiJbaM ;Jb9W \e bobIiuq 

odi oiao sssasvc, aiBizm'. riJ'ioK lo cfiuo i^as® atU lo ^asa d"©©! 

■^XdBbloviiajj ^iQQiiu aoztbM d'as* lo sbia dinoa sxIJ shoXj? iXawsbXe 

bns desire blse ^oXii 8«icJixfo bisa no £>«qqe;Ja xXlrtsaeeoan Mb 

fiaiS b9£fi:T:os9fe-9'xolj3 as siXsTsrefcla blsa o;t iaBo&lba \l9iBlbesm.l 

fcas neAy j-^;t9li3a owo lori lol e'XBO aifb lo ©aioiexs ©xi;t nX sXXriw 

neiorrcf biis lo jcioe*>9i ycf sXcfauj^e £»iis qla:t o;:f bsawso aaw oiaii;t 

a ' cfcuiJMjeleb lo ctXifasi edi ^gatdivo bl&& lo noJiJlJbno© ae^sau baa 

influs o;t Il9l ba& nvronxlet ^efsisxi^ as-* acia ba£ ^9on9aiXa®n blBe9'io'l3 

ia&baelob sdi c^sxiJ jiJcn-..Xoiv jfcos g>oiol ;^jB©ia dSt^ bmiOTa «ci^ noqxf 

-2- . ' 

had notice or knowledge of, or by the exercise of proper care 
should have had notice and knowledge of^ the existence of said 
chipped, broken, crombled and uneven portion of said curbing 
adjacent to said sidewalk for a long time prior to the plainr* 
tiff *s injury herein complained of," 

The following are the errors relied upon by defendant 
for a reversal of the judgment: "1, The verdict and judgment 
are against the manifest weight of the evidence, 2, The judgment 
is in contravention of the law, 3, The court erred in refusing 
to instruct the jury to find the defendant not guilty, 4, The 
court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial. 5, 
The court erred in not holding that the plaintiff was guilty of 
contributory negligence as a matter of law," 

Plaintiff testified that she resided at 2419 ^^^st Adama 
street, where she had lived for forty-eight yearsj that she was 
about seventy-four and a half years oldj that the accident happened 
about ten minutes to eleven a, m,, September 19, 1937> on the north- 
east corner of Madison street and Western avenue, CMcagoj that her 
home is west of Western avenue; that she started froxi there that 
morning with Mr, Rodger s, a cousin by marriage; tJriat they vsralked 
east to Western avenue, then north on the west side of testern 
avenue, crossed Madison street, then walked to the east side of 
Western avenue; that it was a very nice day; that when they got 
to the northeast corner there were a number of poles along the 
curb so that she could not see a street car if it approached; that 
they stood there for a second and then she stepped off the curb a 
little to the southeast to look east for a street car; that she 
intended to go west on Madison street, on a street car, to Keeler 
avenue; that she did not see a car coming and after standing there 
a couple of seconds she turned to go back on the sidewalk and 
"stepped up;" that she was looking where she was going but some- 
thing seemed to give under her, her foot got caught, and she went 

S1B0 isqeiq lo ©eloisxs edi xd 10 ^1o &^b&lmomL 10 90l,toii fiari 
3ni€fii;o Jblije to aoliioq, jpcsveacttf fjcsA beL<imiii^ ^siioid ^bsqqJWo 

".lo fcefll^Icrjasoo X!:lei®c( "^laitxil fi'lll^ 

ieL&basle'D x<^ floqx; fisllsi sioiie sdi sib §js1w©IIo1 edT 

to Ajd-Ii; ., rll^fnloli ©jiJ- d-M:^ scxDloii ion nl beiio J'luoo sxCT 

8fiJfiJbA d-esW ^X^S cfi5 Jbsfsle^n aria *^^ fesi^Ma©;^ lUtcTiLLsX*! 
SBW 9£le ij-firic^ jEiij©'? j-i-f . •••^-y.i-ioT ib' r-,£,vt f bail «jle aisriw ^issij-a 

;.s-ii$qg£rf ■>:■'■ ri^^,--. •^r:i .•} iW ^_,, _ .,. „ .11^3 iwot-'i^fnavss ;fjJocfs 

-iijiofl QiL ,.^ 11^,..- ^v- ^ nsvsXa oi satjaaici ix»^ ;|-i;ods 

101J oacl:f jOfaaJsiMO ^mmm& at©;taa® f«U5 ^as'i^fa aoeifc^M lo neisioo jbb® 
;t£«t)' 9%9iS^ iOQ-ft &»#*!r«#fe 0il« ;t£iii^ j^iffisvj? fiiatfasW lo t^sm ax einofi 

lo ©bis vJcVo-.- --iLi oi fasjiXsw awfiJ ,J'9st3-B i3oaXi>i8M b&e&oi.o ,«ijca9vj 
it OS t^^ ii&sM ^iid:i^ {X&^ »»Jto \;'3t*v & 8i>w d^i j-sfi^ |»i;itev« ai&i&s'H 

s 4%Do 9il:.' ^ "- r. :.i'=Hjt? -^ds nsxliiJ bxia imooen » zol 9isdS boci'd. x®d;i 

arfs ^J-axI ^' " "3S9 3io©X ocJ" iteasiii^JJOa ©ild^ 0^ aimi 

leleojfl o^ , i-:G i':rrii:-d i\ nc ^jhei^e, «o«X£i»M no :ta«w 03 od" bel)fl©;tn± 

©•lafiJ SflXDOsja a:©;J'l« fons gitia^s nss b &£»a Son foib f»d& :^Bdi {©oixsvti 

£5iia aiXswebie QdS ao ^o&fi os ®cJ- b&a%ui sutfa atnooea 1© sXqjJoo & 

-sffioa d^iiJtf §x!los eaw sxie o-xariv/ sixJbiooX asw ««ls t^i& "jqx? l>9qqed"e** 

sprawling forward, flat; that Mr, Rodger s picked her up« The 
witness then testified at length as to her injuries, the treatment 
of the same, and the expenses that she incurred as a result of the 
injiiries. The follov/ing are the salient parts of the cross-exami- 
nation of the witness! She stated that she had been a public 
school teacher for a great many years j that she quit teaching in 
June, 19 30 J that on the morning in question she was on her way to 
a church located at the corner of Addison street and Keeler avenue, 
and that to reach it it was her custom to either take a bus west- 
ward on Jackson boulevard or a westbound street car on Madison 
street; that she did not make an examination of the place where 
she fell after she fell; that the last time she saw the place 
before the day of the accident must have been months prior thereto 
as she was away for about three months; that on that prior occasion 
she does not remember seeing the curb then, but remembers seeing 
the sidewalk; that on the day of the accident, when she got to 
the northeast corner she paused there for a minute, then stepped 
out into the street and walked in a diagonal direction to the 
southeast for probably three or four feet; that she stepped out 
into the street because she wanted to see if the car was coming; 
that when she turned to walk back to the curbstone she turned 
to her left and walked north, straight north; that while she was 
standing on the sidewalk before she stepped into the street she 
did not notice "the surroundings, the street or the sidewalk;" 
that she "only looked for the street car;" that she is naturally 
cautious and looked down as she stepped off the curb. The following 
then occurred: "Q, And when you walked back again to step up, you 
looked down as well, didn't you? A, Yes, I guess I did, * * * Q« 
You saw where you were placing your foot when you stepped back on 
the curb, didn't you? A, Yes, Q. And just what did you see there 
as you stepped onto the curb? A, Well, I suppose I saw a solid 
sidewalk or solid curb, I stepped and something gave * * * 

iamiiA^^:^ Qiii ^setiislnl ten ojf bs rid'an*! d-s i>sl^ld^a»;t cericf- aasft^jtw 
Sflc^ lo JJUraei s as bsfrnxrrM?! «ria #cri* a»acoqx9 ^f btt& ,©««£ stW lo 

olXc'Jiq fi issed bail Bii& d^srivt l»©;JiBd'a erffc :eee£tilw eii* to aoliatt 

oi xflw lexl no 8BW sde aol&^ssjp nl gaJbei^oiR sn^- no ^ssit »v^^I ,»flXft 

-^ss'.f 8i;<f £1 B^BJ leri^le oi Kod'Bifo lari sow it ijt rl09®i o;f ttari^ fens 

eisdv eQAlq, ®ii:f to HOl^saifliBX© na bAsbi Son bib ade SsA:^ iS^^iSz 

»o«Iq mii wse ®ile sitticr Sb&I 9d& iedi jllel arie t9i1& IX»1 erla 

0j?5i©flc^ loliq ^diaom neea svsrf isiiffl 3^il«»f)ioss &AS "io "^sJb sri;?' a-tolscf 

aolBseoo ifiliq ^/iricf no cl-^fi^ isiiistom 99'Mii iB@(S& not -^swa aaw ade ea 

saleea aisdissiBei tisd ^its^i cfi*fo s/ic!' gixJtee* tadaisiiisi d^on aedfc exia 

©^ ^o% s>Ab aed?r ^;ia?)blooB BdJt to lab ml& no i'adi jilswefeia edS 

b&^q^Ss a&di ^e>ivati& ss lol 9'z»d& Jbeaifsq sda isflioo (fassilcfion sd^" 

«dd- o;t aotSoQitb Xftttosslfc s g1 feojCXsw fiyae :f«>»td-e eri;^ o:ffll :tWO 

&SJO bsqqsi-a w!a ^srf;f l^s»l itsot -lo ^b'ThH T^Icfatfoiq lol izesdiuoe 

;$i!liBoo aisw OBO srU" tl 9«8 oc^ iisd-jctaw orfa «su.80©tf cfsei^a 9r{:t oJ'ni: 

fee«*i0c} exls ouod-sdif^) ad:^ od- :rfoiSCf :^Iew o;t ftsiliij^ 9rie asnw tadS 

tsar ed« el±rfw ;)jsri^ jric^ioft &d^teT.iz ^d&ioa bsjfljsw ftiiB tlsl led ocf 

ads ;t©9i;fa Mi oSnl .5«qqi>cfB srte^^'roled ^isweJblfi Bdt ao saJtbrxB^fa 

" ;:tfXsw«feia 9dS ^o cf*»e*t;)^!!r *ii:t ^agatiSiiBoi^iirs $>di** tiotioa. Soa btb 

XXlis^J^^n al Side ;fsdi^ "jrts© Ta^'ld'a »dif td*t btsatool ^jlno*' aria d-sdi 

j^wollol ©rlT .cf-a/o add" llo l^sqqecTa ©da as iiwoJb bsiool bus suotiuso 

uox %ciB qt)is od- niBSS albscf baJtlew uo^ iSsiftr biiA .JJ** sb^ituooo flsAt 

,p ♦ * * »&jtb I eases I ,a93f ,A TiroY t'lsfcJ* ^Xlew as nwob b9:!iooI 

no iofid baqqect?. jjo'^ nsrfw ;too1 two^ aflloslq ©i«r irox S'xoriw wsa iroY 

ei9di see xfox bl6 ^fidw c^a^t &nA .p ,aeY .A 7»ox :t»flf>Jtb ^tf^ffo ed;f 

bjtioe B wae I ssoqqi/a I ^ll9W .A Ttftiio 9ri;t o;:fiio bsqqscfs ifox sb 

under my foot« * * i< q. So that when you stepped down to the 
curh, it was as far as you could see a solid curb? * "■''' * And 
the portion you stepped on was flush with the rest of the curb was 
it not? I mean it was even with the rest of the curb? A, As far 
as I know, yes, Q. Nov/, did you see anything on that curb that 
looked out of the ordinary or was suspicious? That is, that portion 
you stepped on, as you were stepping onto it? A, Well, it looked 
like — like it laight be whole, not whole, it night have been 
damaged, but I supposed it wasn't damaged, or I wouldn't have 
stepped on it# Q. You mean it was cracked? A, I don't know, 

* * * Q. Now, was there any other place on that curb that looked 
perfect to you? A, Any other places on the curb perfect or Just 
perfect? Q, That weren't broken, thet didn't appear damaged. A, 
Where I stepped off, it was perfect. * * * Q, '-fell, then. Miss 
Dymond, in other words the portion of the curb that you stepped on, 
as far as you could examine it when you looked at it, was apparently 
in a good condition, was it? A, You mean when I stepped down or 
when I stepped up? Q. V«hen you stepped up, A» I supposed that 

it was solid, or I wouldn't have stepped on it. Q, Well, then 
there was nothing on the surface of this curb to indicate that there 
was a broken condition beneath it, was there? * * * A. I guess 
the answer to that is no. *** Q, Well, let me put it this way. 
Miss Dymond, as far as you could notice — you looked as you 
stepped up, I take it. You said you were cautious when you stepped 
up, A. I was, yes» Q. And you looked at this particular curb 
as you stepped on it? A. Yes» * * * q. '/Aien you were about to 
place your foot on the curb to get back onto the sidewalk, you 
looked at the curbstone, didn't you? A. Yes, * * * Q, Well, now, 
how did that curb appear to you as you placed your foot on it? 

* * ♦ A, I wouldn't have stepped on it if it hadn't appeared 
safe 4 * * * But when I did step on it, something gave way and my 
foot went in a hole, * * * Q, Now, when you placed your foot on 

bssA ^ uxi/o bllo& & see i^JLeoo jBGn|r a^ ^t JM &«ir ;ri ^diuo 

♦Lsl 8A ,A '!4'USQ &ii^ 'io d^asi sji;^ sUlu a»v9 «aw itl as&ffi I 'Hon il 

itodi d'wo iMi:i ao grLLid'xns 9«^e ucit; bib ^woM ., .aa^ i^woa}! I sb 

nold-ioq ijad^ ,8i i&d'L fzeololq-^Sis. z&v 10 x'^^^^nlbT:© qA^ Io ^xro bealool 

bojfoGl tt tXIs » . ?d-j: otoo j^iXilqqacJ'a s'law wax sb ^o Ijeqq&cfa jtfox 

n©s4 »vj(u1 ^riste cJ-i ^sioite ;t«a ^eXoriw ©cf tsi^ije. it eiJtl — salJtl 

,w<acc£ :f«nob I ,A ^'iss^io^j-jo asw .-ti nssct iJoY .9 ,J-i no b®qqe;te 
&©atool ;t.arid' drujo i&sa mo sQulq isiiiio "'{fui aiwict e«w ^woK ,9 ♦ ♦ * 
iesil 10 ioslieq (^^t^'o 9ili ao eeoaiq isxito xwa .A Yx/o\; od- d^oslieq 

. aaiJil ^itgriJ \.lli- ^„ a^w i'l ^'ilo bsqqsJ-g I ©isi^- 

^ao jbdqqj^c it^ :*<3r'i cf-rtro oj:W Io aoi^ioq otiJ- eij^x^/ 'isii^o aX ^baoa%(l 

iQ JOTOib ibsqqe^a I n&.: . -L.iOffi uc : . ,£ioi:ax£snoo booj m al 

^sdi £>®soqqi/8 I * „ - ,;q9^s xfo^ n9£l ♦, vqi; btjqqe^a I a©cCw 

eesi/s I .: ■'■■ * * ({^-r>:,n:f :■> -r^' ^ , _„ jaasd' ctomfcnoi; nejioKi a asw 
.■*iJ3W eiiiJ v> * - ,. , ... J ^ ^^^:^.. ,y ' * * .on ei d'iiiU ocf riewana wlit 

f>sqq«»i£ i/ox £J©xiw ajJOiJi-i.,;^ .. :.a;/ ifo^ JbJUe j"^" .:'!: "^^f v:^ ^qi; £)aqq©;t8 

tfoAfo iBliolvisq uJUl;}' ;Ji3 fesiooX uo^ hi- . ^a«\ ^c.,.. I ,A .qx; 

©i luocfju ©isw Sio\ asM *|) * ' * ♦££,. .;. VjI ixo bsqqo^a XJO\ es 

jjox t>:isw©i)i;2 Qdi oiaa i- i:u a^ oi cfix;o »fU no J-ool nvo\ ao«Iq 

<,vQfi ^IJ^ . ^ ' .goY .A Tiio^i i^ablb ^QaoiQciiav 9x11 Is baatool 

?j"x nc^ .oo/ 'iXicv bsoisXq ifo^ e^ j;jo\ oJ^ liisqqe rfxup ladJ blfe wori 

fc9X3e»Qqii l'«Jbi»£l il li vll no haqqele Qvad I'fifeXoow I »A ♦ * * 

YK baj^ \sw QVe.-^ anIiiJ eii;o;i ^jJ: no qeit ott " . Ji^S * * ♦ ,»ls8 

no Joo'l , . ,eXoii « nl Ixisw ioot 

the curb, your foot didn't catch then, did it? A, Sometliing gave 
and my foot slipped into a hole, when I put it on. Q, It was after 
you placed your foot on the curb that it slipped and you caught 
your foot, is that right? A. After I put my foot on the curb, * * * 
Q, And it was after that that your foot slipped and you caught it 
on something there? A. 'Afell, something gave causing ay foot to 
slip, Q, Yes, and it was after your foot slipped that it caught, 
is that right? A. Naturally, yes. Q. Now, which direction did 
your foot slip, do you know? Was it to the east, to the west, to 
the north or to the south? A, The south, I would say, because I 
fell forward to the north. Q, And that was your right foot? A, 
Yes. '* ^ * Q. And I take it as you approached this curb and looked 
at it, your glance Included a portion of the curb to either side^ 
did it not? A, Yes, I suppose so," The witness further testified 
that at the time in question har eyesight was perfectly all right, 
as she had UK her glasses on and her sight was good vdth her 
glasses ono 
■' ■ Henry J, Kodgers, a vtltness for plaintiff, testified that 
he lived at Jacksonville, Illinois, was in the banking business for 
twenty-four years and was mayor of Jacksonville for four years; that 
plaintiff was a cousin of his wife and he had known her for many 
years J that he was with her when she left home, and when the accident 
happened. The witness then gave similar testimony to plaintiff *s as 
to the manner in which they reached the northeast corner of Madison 
street and western avenue. He further testified that when they got 
to the northeast corner they stopped at the edge of the pavement and 
waited for the street carj that as they stood on the corner facing 
south plaintiff was to his rightj that he saw plaintiff step out 
into the street a few stepsj that she turned to come back and fell 
on the sidewalk on the left side of where the witness was standing; 
that after the accident he noticed that the curbing was broken; that 
the curbing was about six inches wide and six inches high and there 

dVBt jHlfiJ'siKOc .A ?it hlb ^a&iii do^BO i^ablb :)-oo'i ii;o\ ^douo edi 

-re la Esw ^I .9 .do Ji *nq I ixeilw ^sXoxC ?3 ctfai baqqila *ool icm &n« 

i^jjiS» BOX £103 fee^qlle ;tl: d-acict cl'i/o c-flJ no rfool lirox Bsoslq x;ox 

c^i iA^tt&o uox ba^ , :— -^ -mox Ssd-J jBXtJ isJ-ls esw d"i J&aA .p 

^^WSiJi.o it i^^ L-^ ..;...... v)-oo*> TiroY 'zf^l-. ..... >.i. ^asY .^ .qiXe 

©it* flOiJosiii) xloJfcEfw ^;voK ,p ,eex t^-^-^^'*"^^*^ ♦■^ Titrialn i&di al 
o;f ^:faew edo o& ^f^&Q osli oi it *j^ '^'"rnn^ iro\ ofe ^qila Jool iifox 
I saifBoscf t^ziiB blssovi I ,rC;txioa sxiD . .icJ-i/oa sriit oi lo dit<m biH 
.A tJ-oo'i Jxlgii rmox a ■• ' ■" ' •• , ,:liioa sdi o:^ Mawiol 1191 

bniiool b£i& disss 6i:il:t be&oy<^-u^.ji iju\ ...^ .x .;J2ljii^ I faiA ,5) ♦ ♦ * ,esY 
^afela iBdils oi disjo ©ri^r "id n- /: ^^ - ftsfiuXoni: 96flelg -iijox ^:M ia 

bs>tm&^i 'X^di'm'i eaeasflw eilT ^.^oa s'ooqqtfe I ,««»I .A tiofi ii fclb 

'£@£i ii;tl-Af Jboos 6tai ida^lz leti ba£ no aisa^^Xs '^®it Mi fead atis e^s 

'lol BB9tti3i/cf siijbffi^d odi ni: a.6W ,a±onlIII ^©IXlvfloa^io^'L ^a boviX ©xl 

jj&ilj ^e'XjBex '^o1 10I ©XXlvfio8:3iOB"L lo *ioxb«5 saw ba& st&9Si luol-x^nawj- 

XEtaa lol lori iiwofol ftiarf &ri 6ns eliw alxi lo alawoo a eaw llld'nXBXq 

^ixe£ii;»DjB 9jrC^ amiw hiiB ^ectori ^leX 9fla a&dw i&d riJlw a«w srf i&di jeosex 

SB a»lli:tnijiXq o# x«oeJJtcl'a©d' i>;Il8Jia avag a«iJ* aa©ff;Jlw sxfT .bonaqqaxi 

cocxboH lo iojkioo fQZQd:iiQa Bd:i^ b&jdoRS'x x®^^ dotd^ al lexmsat erii o; 

;toa x^dj a«dw :tailcr fc©l*X:tR®:f lericTixJl sE .elaiev?. ais^esw bofi ;f©9T:;f 

fcfla J-nQ/asiVjsq ari;t lo ©369 arid" cJ^b bcqqod'a x»J^^ isnioo iBBBdSrLoa edi oJ 

gaJLoBl i?>nioo iidS no I>oo;ta x^^^^ 8S t&dS {i&o ;J©®nd'a ©ili 10I be^iaw 

:;jjo qe^E ■rti:*xil/ilq wsa arf d-jsilJ (;;|-xisX'x aid oJT zsvr lll^alsXq diuo& 

XXbI fcHB -Ao&d 9E!0D o;t b^iiijy;t «de f&di {aq»ia ;r©l s *9si;Je sd:^ oial 

iSfllfensie 8BW 8a»«;tlw edi eiarfw lo »fela ^IsX »dS no jCXswsfcl?. sricf no 

iBtli iao3iG-i<f aaw snXchcuo 8i-f;J cTsri;} beoWon sxi JxxsbXoos edd" t»S1a isdi 

was a break in the pavement whers the curb Joins the walk, "a 
small break therej" that at the south end of the break in the 
curbing the break was about eight or ten inches wide; that from 
the curb the break extended north possibly <-'ight to ten inches| 
that he did not see the break before plaintiff fell} that the outer 
edge of the break was possibly five inches deep; thc^t on the west 
side of the break next to the witness there were broken fragments 
of concrete; "that It was a beautLful Eaorning, bright siinshine, 
nice," At this point in the testiraony plaintiff »s counsel had four 
photographs marked plaintiff's exhibits 32, 33, 34 and 35. The 
witness, after inspecting plaintiff's ejddbit 33> stated that it 
showed the conditions as they isere at the northeast corner of 
Madison street and ?festcrn avenue at the tiee in question. He 
then testified that plaintiff's exhibits 34- and ^^ correctly 
represented the sidewalk, the curb and the conditions as they 
were on the morning in question. At the request of counsel for 
plaintiff the witness placed an "x" on exhibit 32 and testified 
that the "x" marked the spot where plaintiff fell. The witness 
then placed an "x" on plaintiff's exhibit 33 and testified that 
the "x" marked the spot where plaintiff fall. iJpon aross«*exami- 
nation the wltaaesa testified that he did not have occasion to look 
at the sidewalk from the time he stepped on it 'ontil plaintiff fell; 
that as soon as they got to the northeast corner they were looking 
for a street car and he did not pay any attention to the sidewalk; 
that at the tiae plaintiff fell he was standing practically right 
by the hole in the curbing that plaintiff fell into; that his left 
foot was about six inches away from where she fell; that he did 
H0t exajnix» the sidewalk until after she fell; tiiat wxien plaintiff 
fell he picked her up and assisted her away from the place, 

Thomas Irving, a witness for plaintiff, testified that for 
twenty-three years he had been the janitor of the building located 
at the northeast corner of Madison street and western avenue; that 

adJ ill jLLidncf arid- Tlo Isris rL^u^B sii* ;tB ^arfJf "l^ierf^f 3iA0icf liaae 
atoYl ;J'Bfl^ tc>fei>» eeiitml aa;^ i© ^rigl® ^J^^a aaw 3{asncf sett saidTWo 

i©Ji/c atit cfi-iiia tXXft"^. llxiitQlBiq &*x<iJ.%di i^ancf a/1^ ass ^on foJtfc sri tfaril 
d'et'w 9ii;J^ no 3-idi iq&eb eeiiaci ©vil x-^dli&oq asT? 3U«icf »£tt lo •gfe© 

«£Sr ,^i bm, ^i ^ii t3£ 8*Mx£bL0 s ' nicraislq Isajf-isja sdqaiso^ofiq 

®a .fi^l^i-ei/p at muM ftM ;ts siiaevij ai^z^^ hn& ie&ii^ fsoeJ;l)£l( 
XX»f oc-^iieo ^£ fms ^L aitdHut^e e. ' llic^nXjsIq $ii£i:i Ijaillcta©^ nsiU 

b»lltissi has S£ J-ic'idxe no "x" ob £>90sXq 2e©n:flw ad«-t ,tli:tfllsXq 
SBsatJbM &^ »XXs'i llltuJiMXq s^wfitf ^oqa '=«i^ feaafas^ "x" &dS :t6Xl;t 

-.iiiLBX«-»aEO'io rioqU ,XX&1 'lli^iilisXq »^»«[w ^oqa oflJ bsT^iam "x" axW 

iiool o^ ixcitis&oo evMi Jon fcif> ffi isnii b'?tjt'ilis9$ Ktmii^ 9dS stoJL;iaa 

jXXel lliJiLisXq IxJxu;; vX no bar.qs^e ©xl ©»Id- &xll atortl jCXaf/ebia edi ia 

|2iXiiW©i>ie 9/ij oi noiifl«ctJ-s xkb xaq ^c« &i^ ®rf 6<*« "^fi® ^»0Tc;^a s lol 

ri&i eXxi *siiJ io;tnI XX«»1 llld-jilsXq #&d:r safccf^ufs ed^ at •Xoil sri^ xrf 

tllialsiXq Hoxiw utiaxiJ- jXX©^ 6»rfa -ta^li* Xlitmr XXywsfcXa »iit MUsutxs i-oa 
,eo«Xq oclii^ jbo'iI x^bwjs isd ferj^faiaa^ bnis qisr i^d b9^olq ari XXal 
10*3: iBdi £»eillJ-sej ^llXifitciXq aol aaaac^irv n ^gjoi'^iX EsiaodT 
bed'.rtOoX siiXoXXifu odi ^o lo^ixtBt ©^^ ^^»cf ^^^- ^"^ &'Xm&x 9Btdi'^xias>si 

it was part of his duties to keep the sidewalk clean; that 
plaintiff's exhibits 32 and 33 correctly represent the situation 
at the northeast corner of Madison street and Western avenue and 
the condition of the sidewalk as it was on September I9, 1937; 
that it had been in the same condition for about three months 
prior to the accident. 

Defendant offered no evidence. 

Exhibits 32 and 33 are before us. They show that the 
entire curbing in front of the store on the northeast corner and 
portions of the sidewalk just adjacent to the curbing were in a 
very bad and unsafe condition. As alleged in the complaint, "th© 
curbing had become chipped, broken, crumbled and uneven," and 
not only the curbing itself but parts of the sidewalk adjacent to 
the curb h^d broken away. It appears to us that the condition 
had been produced by the wheels of heavy trucks and vehicles striking 
the curb until finally the curb and also portions of the sidewalk 
Just adjacent to the curb crumbled away, The condition is so 
obvious that a person standing on the opposite side of the street 
could have readily seen that the curb and portions of the sidewalk 
were destroyed. As counsel for plaintiff argued to the jury, it 
must have taken a long time to produce the condition that was 
present at the time of the accident. It is surprising, indeed, 
that such a condition could have existed at a busy corner like 
Madison street and ivestern avenue. Exhibits 32 and 33, were intro- 
duced by plaintiff, and her counsel, during the trial and here, ii>- 
sist that they correctly represent the situation at the time of the 
accident, Mr, Hodgers was asked by plaintiff's counsel to mark on 
exhibits 32 and 33 the spot where plaintiff fell, and he marked on 
both photographs a spot located within the defective curbing. Plain- 
tiff was not asked to indicate on said exhibits the spot where she 
fell, and it is reasonable to assume that plaintiff's counsel did 
not question her on that subject for the reason that she persisted 

fyim »sm.&^& i%i?iiz^ ban :iBBt-Jr'i ao&lb&M ^o neatioo ^esftri^rtoft ©rfrf ^s 
I^^X ^^I lotfffl^Jq^g no 8*3w ;Ji: as aHa^-O&ife sni$ 1o OGtStbttoo bsH 

stsy- j-.k:j vvoiit xeiii ,Bi) rJTolscJ 9^* ^£ fina -^it a^ltfirfx- 
baa 59£iaoD ^aas^iioa sifj ' tc^fe &rf* t© iaetl fli %&l:^ii!'^ ^tiistB 

l>ns "<it»v»iSfi firm b«IcfjaL"io ^afyfo'id ^fcsqqMo 8«o»»cf bari gfiJtcfauo 

i^&^ts: axJct lo a£>la ©jfleoqq© add" ao §ulfeji*jCts aoeiaq s ietU svdtrlio 
tl&W9biB ©iit to «fioi;d''2oq fe«e €f*i»^ 9£[^ a^aifct a»©2 xXllwei svsrf hl/roo 

-ill ^9'i9rf IjHii lai'itiJ 9ff;t gjii'ajjb \Is2fUfoo laif fens ,ltl:fjLtalq x«f &esiitX> 

ari;? lo skJ:;? &£l;^ i& rioi^atrd'la ftri;^ drisma^q®^ %lSoBtnt>o x®x£t ;^«dd" *ele 

ao jfTfittc oi i^enx/oo s'ltlcfiiialq x*s" baafsfi aaw 8'i©st>o« *^ ,i'ii&51oos 

ao foeiiiiiiK 9f{ baa ,II&1 nunlalq eiacfw iJoqn s»fi^ ££ bns Sc c^idJabc© 

«flli3l1 .scM'itrD ovlJofilsb augi iiiui^lw i>©^0ool ^oq« « criqaijiOJ-oriq x&ocf 

sria e*reri«r ^toqa 9£[;t ad^io'Mxs £)1a« fro ^i»t>lhal oS bsiLzM ioa a«w 'MIS 

bib L&BatsQO m* t'ttfatalq S&d^ wauegs o* eXdaa<jaij©'i ai 3-1 baB ^II»1 

vi^lf Ifn'l^ 4«kA^</t/n -fArf-^- mtiti *r,r< of #«n f'+lft c^fm -^AfV 


in stating that she was looking where she was going, that she 

was naturally cautious^ and that when she stepped back on the curb 

there was nothing on the svtface of the curb to indicate that it 

was in a defective condition. 

In our view of this appeal it is only necessary for us to 
consider one contention raised by defendant, viz., that the manifest 
weight of the evidence shows that plaintiff was not in the exercise 
of due care and caution for her own safety at the time of the injury* 
In support of this contention defendant argues that the manifest 
weight of plaintiff »s testimony clearly shows that at the time of 
the accident the curbstone and sidewalk adjacent thereto at the 
place of the accident were in an obviously defective condition; that 
"it was a beautiful morning, bright sunshine, nice," and that if 
plaintiff had exercised any care when she stepped from the street 
onto the curb she could not have failed to observe the defective 
condition of the curb and the sidewalk adjacent thereto, Fs'e are 
constrained to agree with this contention and argument of defendant. 
At the trial plaintiff »s counsel contended that exhibits 32 and 33 
correctly represent the condition that existed at the time of the 
accident and prior thereto. Indeed, they contend here that these 
exhibits show the condition of the curb and sidewalk as it was on 
the day of the accident and as it had been for at least three months 
prior to the accident. As we have stated, the defective condition 
was so obvious that it could have been plainly seen by a person 
standing on the opposite side of the street. Plaintiff testified 
that she was naturally cautious and that she looked at the curb 
when she was about to place her foot on it. The able and ingenious 
counsel for plaintiff argues here that the accident was not caused 
by the curb but it "was caused by a definite hole in the walk," 
(Italics ours.) This is an after thoughto The complaint charges 
that plaintiff stepped on the curbing and that because of the bad and 
unsafe condition and repair of the curbing she "was caused to trip 
and stumble by reason of said broken and uneven condition of said 

sxla i^iii <§clo3 3£W axle s'lsriw -^aMooL saw bAb tB&i snld-jsc^e ni 

cfniTo aitJ' no :£DBrf 6s»qq©:ta ©xia asriw S^sAS baa ^ef/ol^ti/ao x-CIiJ'W'^afl »«• 

$t i&dS BttBOlbal o;t cf-mo s»jtl# lo eo^slrrfie ©rid- no a/£ixi;tof! asw ©rrsiU 

,aol^iJ)iioo svWostsb & at zen 

oi' Bjy lol X'3^®2909u xino si -qs aJti' uo nl 

dEeliiLsffi ©ri;t ^sffct ^,sjb/ ^insMslefo xcf feeejtsi £toiJns;Jnoo sno leblsnoo 

sel^xi&xfi »fl;t xii ()^on zim Itt&ttX&lq i&di aworia sjsflfsfclve »sU to ^ilaJt»w 

.X-n/t^J: 9£W' lo smli erfd" ^s "^(telse cmc :.'■ noWuao biLB »ijbo evb lo 

;t89lJ:££3iE erfd^ ;tisf{cf ssttgis d-flebneleb floiJn»:tneo eMt lo itioqqua nl 

1:o sii\t' ula %Xisi9lt) •\iiiOfidd-8©d' 8'lll*isi«Iq lo drtslsAr 

9di Sb oS&^.9dS *xiQfi@lb& :ilsv&hi& 6fls aao^ecfixio sitt d-fl©61oo« exW 

Ai ifloid-lStGoo evld-o^leB ti8^o-t>''<fo le"^ cf-ueblooA wLf lo •eelq 

11 S>id$ btm "^Qoln ^®aiJi^asJt taiom laliliiiBed b asw Ji" 

j'9®iJL' arid" jftoil fieqqs^t-e otria a»dw 9iso xtm l)»aloiex@ bfiri lll^niBlq 

svl:fDo1:r>' BdS f)t*iescfo ot fe^XJtjBl fvx Isioo adls rf-sirD «mI* o^no 

oif ,oim.^di imfO/ilbs :AiavfBbl& sdS baa cfixjo BdS lo nolctiJbnoc 

» ;?CB&jHel^fc lo j?fl®jaii8TG &flB xiol;tflfi.^aoo alrli rirflw eeigs o^ f>«wlBi*taoo 

£^ ba& S£ ^iitfJtd:^ JbsliasJfloo Xeexmoe E»lli:ixiJtsIq Laln^t attt d^A 

6itt Ic Qffild 9ii;? i^B i^s^fajbco ¥jul'i' a^tiibnoo erii- cfn9a©i:q»^ X-'^^s'^tios 

!9e9fl:;' rad feisetjttc ,l>ssbHl .o^JsisdJ" iciTq bus :taBbt.oo& 

'*» '<anr '*! »« jilswsfeJts btis Snv -■> n;®i::>J:ijflos add- worfe z^ Jt dlxixs 

fi0i:ti:fia03 i9Vii'o:l9& Siii ^b^d-B^t .^aeblooa eri^ oJ loliq 

ixosisq a tcJ a0»a y^JK cf ©v^ f>jtiiv ; ji, i/sxld^ axfoivu'o 08 bjsw 

I^UH^bS llJfc^niijIH .:ffj9td« t«ri^ lo sbtz 9;tiaoqqo ;^£i:t no ^l£>njB;t« 

#ir/o s^itf ^s feeilooX ftds .:fR.(^ &«« atioi*.f.'«o vXlBncm;^aa eew ode cfjsdJ" 

eiioiiisgjiii tes ©Ids ®i . J'jj'ocfB asw ©xls neriw 

b&zsT30 i<m 2/3W j-iisfcXoo? ^:^£iS SsxW eiari asx/Sis lllinliilq ^ol Iseruioo 

,%2L^, jgtf &I&1 gl ©XofJ ft;fJtnJ:l*'sb a x<f beawso saw" it iud divs odi xd 

te^ido iHisIqaioo ©xlT .J-iiauo/ltietflis a& al aiflT (,eii;o eoJLLs^fl) 

has 53Cf :^rf.!t lb ScXJ'^onff S-Ml:f fens ■?n*c'Trc ?*jrf.-t rto !)?q-GsJs lli^tnljsXq ;jB£ii 

J**- ^« -..,--.,- .,-.,. ..ioWlbnoti elBEmx 

— 9«* 

curbing," Plaintiff's coimsel, in his statement to the jury, 
stated, "She turned to step on the curb and put her right foot 
upon the curb and into the hole that was there in the curb and 
extended along the crevice in the sidewalk," The plaintiff testi- 
fied that she stepped on the curb and something gave way under her 
foot; that when she stepped on it "something gave way and my foot 
went in a hole." 

Defendant strenuously contends that we should liold, as a 
matter of law, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence 
that proxlaately contributed to her injuries, This contention 
will not be sustained. 

The judgment of the Superior court of Cook county is 

reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial, 


Friend, P, J,, and Sullivan, J,, concur* 

c^ool id^ii i9ii croq fens of«rjj» ©xld' ao qed'e o;t t&a-itsS aria" ^osj^sj'a 

•xearf ^s&u^ Xsw ©vsg §xilii^aKoa fofis cfii/o eiid" no b&qquiz &tij& i&£ii feell 
cf"Ool T£E[ CHB ^^w 9VS3 '^M^omos** lit CLo baqqQis 9m aamr i&tiS jd-ool 

nol^aB^aot) eld's ,29iiii(,fll 1©*! o;f feeJ-ttcfli^Jnoo XfirtJWtbcoiq *«icr 
»1 x:»*^££iK)o 2I00O lo d^'ijcroo loii^qiie ©xtt lo d-xieaiaixct ®^ 

sstJAO (MA fiaa^.HVfii{ rm^ismui 






COMPANY* an Illiiafeis corporation, 
ap. liHiiois corpor^ti^,^#OHN J'^i 
ApE% anA JAMES J, #IS^/^" ^'^ •'' 

COMPANY ;^=|[n Illinois corporation, 
defendants) Appellants, 

■" ^^^^^.^^^wm^^mmm^'is^^^sm^^mMMiMMJl,^ court. 

An action brought to recover damages iinder the Dram Saops 
Act. Upon motion of plaintiff John J, Annes Restaurant Company, 
John J, Annes and James J, Annes were dismissed from the case. 
A Jury retorned a verdict finding the remaining defendants, 
Ralph M, Gately, Theresa Gately Bulger and Roula J. Annes 
Restaurant Company, a corporation, guilty and assessing plain- 
tiff's damages at $1,250, They filed a motion for a new trial, 
which was overruled and judgment in the sum of $35*3 was entered 
upon plaintiff's entering a remittitur in the sum of $900, Ralph 
M, Gately, Theresa Gately Bulger and Roula J. Annes Restaurant 
Company, an Illinois corporation, defendants, appeal* 

The complaint alleges. In substance, that on or before 
August 22, 1938, defendants Ralph M, Gately and Theresa Gately 
Sulger were the legal holders of record of the fee simple title 
to the premises in question; that Roula J, Annes Restaurant 
Company ^as the owner of and operated a restaurant, tavern and 
saloon in said premises, knovm as 57 Sast Adams street, Chicago, 
wherein intoxicating liquors were sold and served to persons who 
patronized said restaurant, tavern and saloonj that said premises 

%o Tmoo Hoi"rs*t;c 


-57 '01 


s:^ ^ ^ . -,- .,, .^. ^Afii' 


X J- %3' 


,1^00 HEX -^O fe sAiHSYM-M i';V; .AOf, eiOIXaUT, .Ht^ 

• easo edit aoil be&ztm&lb @i@w ssruxA .X asnsi bOA cennA .L ruiol 

afiflfl/i ,1. sIi''oH Mfl aesXifa xi^^sC sas^«i!T ,X-t©^3T) .M riqlafl 

^laliS wan s lol noliom b b®I±l xari'X .O^S^Iijt *« B»jfl«a& e'lll* 

xiqiKH ,00^$ lo iHwe sxi^J at •uid-i^cTlBiQi s gal'isctn© s'Wd-nisIq aoqu 

ia&isji>:i-&BH z^mU ,1 alfSoE Mb i&^XitSi ^I^^bO sBSiSfCC ^>jl»;ta0 .M 

^lA&qqs ^iSiiaiihaBV^b ^nold-Bioqioo alonJtlll na ^xoBqcoO 

•lol&cf lo no imS ^saajsd^edi/e ni ^gegslla wn^.siqflJOO arlT 

%X9iBi) saoisiiT fcas ^I»;?sO .M dqlsH. Bia&ba&^9b ^St^l ,SS Sstnttk 

£uri8 m;©V3;t ^;iaR1tJAi^01 & Jbei'sisqo fjfia lo isotto sxlcf bbw xa^iDoO 


of said Restaurant Company were leased by said Gately and Bulger 
to said Restaurant Company for the purpose of conducting a 
restaurant, tavern and saloon and said Restaurant Company was at 
the time in question conducting said business with the full 
knov/ledge and consent of said defendants Gately and Bulger; that 
plaintiff at the time and place in question was at all times in 
the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety; that at 
the time in question and prior thereto there was in full force and 
effect a certain statute of the State known as the Liquor Control 
Act and that chap, 43, Dram Shops, par. 135, HI. Rev, Stat. 1939, 
provides as follows: 

"135* Actions for damages caused by intoxication. 3 Sec, 
14, Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer or other 
person, who shall be injured, in person or property, or means of 
support, by any intoxicated person, or in consequence of the 
intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of any person, shall have a. 
right of action in his or her own name, severally or jointly, 
against any person or persons who shall, by selling or giving 
alcoholic liquor, have caused the intoxication, in wliole or in 
part, of such person; and any person owning, renting, leasing or 
permitting the occupation of any building or premises, and having 
knowledge that alcoholic liquors are to be sold therein, or wh© 
having leased the same for other purposes, shall knowingly permit 
therein the sale of any alcoholic liquors that have caused, in whole 
or in part, the intoxication of any person, shall be liable, severallj 
or jointly, with the person or persons selling or giving alcoholic 
liquors aforesaid, for all damages sustained, and for exemplary 
damages; and a married woman shall have the same right to bring suit 
and to control the same and the amount recovered as a feme sole; and 
all damages recovered by a minor under this Act shall be paid either 

to such minor, or to his or her parent, guardian or next friend as 
the court shall direct; and the unlawful sale, or giving away, of 


^ij a««f ^saqjneC ifiBisiBts&Fx bt&^ ba& xxooIa« tum ai9-v?J xirtusissttei 
JLlsjl BiH iicJ-Jrw ®8©claiJd l>lBe snld axjfcnoo nolc^e^wp rti sail^ edJ' 

jELt a^slJ- lis iB -^m noli s ©up ii.t ®,»«Iq toa 55Cil;t Bf'- i^niJaXq 

^js isii& wtel&z mso aJbdi 10I xto^^iiss £s«3 ©%so sffb lo ojjto'xisxs edd' 

£«« soiolt IXi:;! Hi ajsw e-ysxiJ^ ©jTs'ieiiJ- -loi-xq ha& ixoXd-asi/p nl effl;f sett 

*^£^-t .;^b;:I'S .vsH ,XII 4^£X .iBq ^sqo^t * ^ > «qftrfo J-srW- btLa ^oA 

ravsoXXolt e« csbivoiq 

♦ 098 [.floX^Jaoixoixii \(i b&^UBO assumed 10I sflolcfoA .'$£.1** 

isdL^o 10 ie-^oXqsi.^> ^HBX^iAi*^ ^crne'isq ^Mido^slXw ,i)j[LscJ2jjd Y^®va ,W 

lo 8i3i)9a- 'io ^-i^iaqoiq 10 isosisq nX ^bsiij^nX acf XXsda oriw ^noaieq 

©ild' 'io saaajjpeaxxoo ai 'xo ^xsoaiisq ija^iioXxoirai XJ^e Xfi ^^tioqqua 

^-'iLialol iQ T^XXensvaa ^©«u8n awo "seri no eixl nX noicJos lo ;txlsXi 

SfllvXj -JO SMiXXee v-f ^XX«jxte oiiw ajctoeisq 10 noaieq Xfifi d"aflii3aB 

sxl 10 9i©xi¥/ JiX ^ii«X:ttiSlxo;?nX aiU ^©aiuso svBjcf ,ioifplX oXXodooXs 

^0 3aiaa@i ^sisldriei ^saXirvifo aoe^isq '^pua &i&e |Coai8q xiojjs lo ^d-isq 

snivsil feos ^aeeime-jq ':i.o sfxlJbXli/cf tj;^ Ip m?X;jBqi/©oo sd;^ ^liiiM.i^<i 

edw 10 ijiiXaiedd" cXoa 9ih oJ ©ijfs a'lo^pXX fiiXoriooXA i&iii 9-^bsi^QaA 

iij^ieti xXs/t£ A 0£ui XXiitis ^sssoqijjq •x&rid'O lol disse exi^ bseeeX gnlVBri 

&X«3dw iii ^fieaji^o *vAri J-jsitd^ e-xowpXX oIXoiIosXb -^s lo ©Xd.e srid^ nleiexli' 

;XXsiev^«S! ^sXefsXX bq XXsrie ^££<iaiaq "pLd lo xioXjBOixo;JxiX eri;t ,;fX8q xxX 10 

oXXoflooXs saXvXs -lo gfilXXea anoa i©q 10 aoaieq sri;t jri^l^Xw ^^cXd'xxXot 10 

^'isXqiHsx© -301 £>ri£i ^bonXsd'aaa aegaiEsi) XXb 10I ^fiXsEeiols enojupXX 

ilisz sxil^d oi ofigii oiiiJii£ sttij ©visfi XXiurla £Lskow beXii.sai a haz (8S3«injB5 

JbcLB (dXoo 9ffi®l £ Bii bsisvooei ^titt/oiae 9A^ titi& siiiss adcf Xoiinoo o^ ba& 

rtSTtJ-Xs l)iAq aef XXbcb iak zisii i^basi roaiai a xdi bsiGYooei aesBrasI) XXa 

SB bneffi &XWI 'lo OBibi&ifg ^*nsT.sq ^mi a© iilrf od^ lo ^aifiXiu rioije o;t 


alcoholic liquor, shall work a forfeiture of all rights of the 
lessee or tenant, under any lease or contract of rent upon the 
premises where such unlawful sale or giving away shall take 
placej and all suits for damages under this Act may be by any 
appropriate action in any @f the courts of this State having 
competent jurisdlctioju" 

The complaint then alleges that at the time in question 
said Restaurant Coapangr sold to an unioaown man who was then and 
there a patron of said premises certain intoxicating liquors and 
alcoholic liquors and that he then and there became and was intoxi- 
cated and under the influence of intoxicating liquors so sold by 
said defendant; l^iat because of the intoxicated condition of said 
unicnown man so caused in whole or in part by reason of defend- 
ant's having then and there sold, given or furnished intoxicating 
liquors to him plaintiff was assaulted, stabbed and seriously 
injured. The complaint sets up in detail the alleged physical 
injuries sustained and certain other losses sustained by reason 
of said injuries "to the damage of the plaintiff in the sua of 

Defendants, in their answer, adutit the ownership of the 
property in which the tavern and restaurant was being operatedj 
adiait that said Restaiirant Company operated said tavern and 
restaurant and therein sold and gave alcoholic liquors; admit 
that the sale of alcoholic liquors in said tavern was with the 
knowledge and consent of the defendants who were the owners of the 
property. The answer denies that any man, isno'vai or unknown, at the 
time and place in question became intoxicated; denies that plaintiff 
was injured as the result of the intoxication of any man, known or 
unknown. The answer avers that if plaintiff was injured by any 
uzxknown man at the time and place in question it was because of 
plaintiff's failure to exercise due care and caution for his own 
safety, and was not due to any acts or conduct on the part of 

'XXt's X^ ^>^ xsfi» isik sJUi^ ui'bae si»30ffiEd£} tol iSXan XX i^ &xtB i^siosXii 

saivori @s&2i "■■■''" •.'" ■*"•"•■■ ■ • ■■■ ' ■:•■ ■'ixiB at tgoXista, 9;tiiliiioiq_ci& 

'' ,/ioX4 &Xi>&X'£i^t ^neJteqiBOo 

bmA &mU 3,m <xi« is.m ixsmi^im'i • '^'- 5X0e ytptisitjimt) tMsnua^'^i'-'i- £>1js« 

•^cf bloz on sioMplL ^ii^,ol7.oSsU: to &oc©£)XleX «g^ ^ol»tw £>«« 6©^»fi 

^bmi%-ib to jao§j»»'i T£Cf ^'la^ iii -i- «Xctflw ai beaja&o oe £L80 jcwoicLiur 

saJU&^XxioitaX £>^«li«'^l -£0 at»'£'Xg ^iiXois 9rzt»iij Ii^ls asfiii! axUv^fi e'^4U» 

\XajJol«j:^e Ma hmldi^z ^bvUmnBM saw I'iX-i^g.Ufq i&Xci ocf siOjirpXX 

Xs»Xsx£i'4 ^t>a^XX*!. ^KciJ- ix&3i»b a,l qju «#»« ^JflXiXqiioo silX .^sitftaX 

noaas'i Y<f b9cxj3#ir;jt/a aaaaoX s«r^o £iX&^a«tp fane i»©aX^^8Xfs asl-jirtxxX 

1t« j^e >:t*^ nX ttX^sUxlq, sdi lo as^av^ ^^ &^" esXiut^ l>X^e 1q 

^b^ie'zmio lisX^cf &j^-« Xa&'m}i^&»t Mcu h'xqv^ e»riJ' xioidw nX x^'i^®>ion:q 
^X£i£>ici sBoe&pXX aXXoilottXa ffyfaa itea^ bXoe xiXeistfW i^^ioa iss^iis&iia^i 

llXcifSlaXq ^BiiD eeXus^i^ ih'St$&f^t-x04:til «aus4»«4 ju»Xu«««fp nl ttA«iq fiOA 9Kili 

no is^ooiiL «nia£2 \£U^ lo iic9tJ:;^49X3((xiisX <»£i^ lo J^XJ9«i&'£ a^ e« £>9<xx;tAX saw 

1{;£U \& btfisjUil 8.^w ItXJ-xiXjs^q IX iMiJ i;aavA iswams siiiX .onrocoLcur 

lo fmnes^dcf i«(?t d-X jM^Jt^eaifp oX »»«Xq &qu» sibUU aiit iz XLara xsvoiuUur 

janra aXri lo'i noiwJj.-iO i>a« ®i«o swJa ©s.XoTrjca oJ^ stujXXaI «*llX;txiXAXq 

defendants for which they could be held legally responsible under 
the statute relied upon by plaintiff. 

Plaintiff's theory of fact was that on August 22, 19 38, 
the Restaurant Company, through its bartender or bartenders, sold 
alcoholic liquor to an unknorai manj that thereafter said man became 
intoxicated and said Restaurant Gompai^ continued to serve him 
alcoholic liquors while he was in a state of intoxicationj that 
as the result of the intoxication of said man and while plaintiff 
was in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety, 
said unknown msua, without any provocation or justification for his 
said act, assaulted and stabbed plaintiff. 

Defendant states that its theory of fact is as follows: 
••Defendants contend that the unknown man in question was not intoxi- 
catedj that the intoxication, if any, was not the effective cause 
of the assault and that the plaintiff by reason of his own mlscon^ 
duct brought about the supposed assault; that therefore, the plain- 
tiff was not entitled to any damages whatsoever and was under ne 
circumstances entitled to exemplary damages,*' 

After a careful examination of the evidence we are eatis— 
fled that the jury were justified in finding for plaintiff. That 
plaintiff, while a patron in the saloon, was stabbed by another 
patron of the place, described by the bartender and other employees 
of the Restaurant Company as "the little Italian fellow," is un- 
disputed. The jury were warranted In findiD^ ttiat the Restaurant 
Company sold alcoholic liquors to the unlmown man, that thereafter 
said man became intoxicated and said Restaurant Company continued 
to serve alcoholic liquors while he was in a state of intoxication, 
and that the attack on plaintiff was without provocation and was due 
to the intoxicated condition of the unknown man, who fled after the 
stabbing. The doctor who attended plaintiff testified that he 

"found a wound vdth a dressing on it on the left side, just at the 
edge of the ribs, of the abdomen, and th^S W&S ft iiiillllll "Wl* clean 

i>Xoa ^S'ld&asit'ifid 10 T^ba^^jriad «itt iigao'iiii ^■'{:^sqIaoO d-flsiifscteaH add' 

Maso»cf asai f)X.s» •ss^Jlsjaisrli d'eri;!' jiuaffi nwesotnjj HiB 0^ ncasptl oLLodoolz 

&M 8v»c&a o;}- bevnl^^aov xn-sqicoO i'UBrmistseH Mas isftc hoi s^oixo^ial 

lll^fitlisX'a aXMw Sks xiisig bJEss lo fioivtjarojteoifiJ: «il3- 'lo 3^Xxre9*[ od^ ss 
' t'?^^'*^^ ^^® ®^ '^*^''* istoic^irss fetifi ers:«o ot'fo lo •5sisi»x» sriJ- ni ««w 

.Yli^iilsXq festfcfB^B Jmis fietfXcssjss ,;J-ojs filstt 

"Jbcoc^itJ: 5^ Oil s«w if©W8®ji;p al joaat nmom^siu »ii^ 3fBflt fottsinoo R;J-ni}f>r[el9<I* 

©aifas ®vlJ^s«'tl» &d4 ioa sav ,'^b "il ^iiol^issi:xo;tni i^rict- itsri^f ^be^'ad 

-aonaifit flwo aid lo Hoas®t ^tf tlWfll&Xq aifct led^ bxia i'Xi/saaa sdS lo 

-iiijsXq ad^ ^©^ol»i»d^ ^B£iS {tla&a&B feszogqifs ed-^ iwoda ^dsi/o^cf tfiiib 

cfi od&jaii Si:.i? M» i0^»oe*Brfw s^ssjloIi -scnB oj heima^ r^oxi 2«w llJtt 

".a^i^jiiiftfi XiaXqaBKSi oiJ" fc&X^X^«» 8 

-•2Xj;3e oifi aw eofl«fciys siid lo noiJ^iiilffisxa Xx/I'^'ijeo £ is^lA. 

d-adT ,lll;tiiisiq aol s^bisXl ai: &sllJt,^gift 9i»w t^i^S ^d^ ^ad^r i)eil 

'xsdyofss -vi'J b»dd&^a saw' ^i«>® afiiS' at ti&^»i a elldw ,lli;tfllBXq 

eeexoXqjEO *t&jtlc>'0 Ma isfeflsijiiscf siLt ijd fesdiioasS ^sosXq ©rij lo aoii'sq 

-lu/ al "^w©XX©l GjalXs^I eX;fcrH s/i^" 2b vixsqffioO ^flBiifs^esfl wll lo 

^itolS Aolxo^al lo c;tsd^3 s i»l a«w ©d »XMw aiewpil olXodooXs 9Vi»e ijJ' 

esib eaw facts floJtJe6«voiq J-ifod^flw em llic^illsXq fl^ 2l3fi;t^d add^ i^4 bam 

9di is^la beXl odw ,iL8m /iwoa^-taw arW" lo fioiitiMoo bectjsaXxoitnX ad* od" 

ed is&di bel13iiB9i llJb*nlflIq fcf>6fl:©;Jd-fl oriw le&oeb ©xfT .snXcfcfEXTa 

fldf d-a ftivt ^9bl^ ;tl9X 9d;t no ;tJ: no afllsasib s d:?i:w hmi<ya s JLyru/ol'* 


cut, clean edges about one and a half Inches long and closed with 
sutures, - stitches, in other wordsj" that he "changed the dressing 
and examined the wound;" that he saw plaintiff about eight or ten 
times; that "first I changed the dressings about every two to three 
days, and in about the usual time, - eight or nine days, - I removed 
the sutures and after that he came back and there was a redness and 
swelling in the wound and I found some pius, and I allowed that to 
drain and observed it and watched it and he came in several times 
for the dressing and drainage;" that he charged plaintiff $20 for 
his SQrvices* 

After a consideration of the record we are unable to under- 
stand why defendants shoiild complain of the judgment entered. It 
seems to us that they should feel grateful that plaintiff was not 
killed, or more seriously injured than he was. The stabbing occurred 
at 2:30 o'clock in the morning. The bartender testified that there 
were between thirty and fifty patrons in the place at the time, some 
men, scrae women. There were women waitresses and several women 
operating games of chance. After the stabbing plaintiff went 
to St. Luke's hospital, where an interne put six stitches in the 
wound and a bandage over the entire side. Plaintiff v/as not able 
to go to work for about seventeen days. He then v/ent to work for 
about six weeks on a new job. At the end of that time he was obliged 
to quit the job because the '^'eight of the accordian he played, on 
the wound, "made it very uncomfortable," and in ordor to give his 
side a chance to heal he worked two nights a week at banquets, 
dances and one-night affairs, averaging $15 a week in earnings. He 
went back to work permanently on December 12, 1938. At the time he 
was stabbed he was receiving as pay $6 a night. Plaintiff further 
testified that the stabbing caused a big rip in his coat as well 
as his pants, and that both garments were bloody; that St. Luke's 

hospital charged him $5 for the first aid treatment and he paid 

> ,■"■'■■ 

$2 on account of the same. 

We have considered the four errors assigned in support of 


itfjtvf i)©aolD 0£Ui aiiol B9doal IXtsii s jbns aao juocfa aegb© ossls ^^iro 

galesihdb aticf bftsaaxl^" art ;t6ri;t "jaB'iow isdio al ^BsaioilitB - ^ceow^tifa 

a^ TO cfrlgift J^x/ods "ilWJOiai.q wss erl ctertd "jfiaxfow 9/fcf fcsislfflaxe baa 

b9y(mei ^ \^^b eai. ■- ^^v^iid:^ i^r:: « ■-> j- j-jjodB al fins ,eX8b 

fiiRs 8aexs£)si B 3»w 9i9rij bns 2to.: ana 8©ij:i:t0p- «rii^ 

tiSHld^ JUi®v £s£i©;tBw &nj8 ;ti fteviestfo ba& alaib 

tol OS^ I'^I^JiifeBrq fc®3'mil3 ed &&d^^\^zatBtb baj& sfllgaeiJb 9iiS not 

,s»oivi9e ziil 

©i&jd^t ifixi^ i>©i:llc?'8®jt loJbnejfificf ©xCT ,3x11(1100 9d;f al jioolo'o O^jS ;^a 

©lid- al e.B£ic:^ li F: ;:. 
•Ids don a> 

fcsslld'o ajstf art ^xdi - 

aJLri Sfviij -, 

J0-T >-f[' 

'•^y.-^basid b btLr, baaom 
yr^-. lol ^lov oi OS o;t 
n B no asisew xi:a i^juocfs 

.—,::_ .i;',cncj c'af sr'."t .tlup od" 

^ : rf'^-f-'-rrs'^n!: or ■ ._ .,.._.' ^ :)iU/OW ©rf;J 

; .^, -.„ ^..„ ...^..uj ._ ^^Bd oi soaado b ©bis 

3fli:s0T:©vr, teilslls d-xCsln-sno fciLs eeoxisi! 

Die SbiU ed- mid fedsisilo ^laiiqaoxf 

.9fflii« sffd^ lo sJtujodob ixo S4^ 


the contention tliat a new trial should be awarded, but find 
that none has substantial merit. If the ease were tried again 
and before an intelligent jury, defendants could not reasonably 
expect to obtain a verdict foi' as sraall an amount as the trial 
court allowed plaintiff in the instant judgment. 

The judgment of the Superior court of Cook county Is 


Friend, P, J., and Sullivan, J,, concur* 



^ic{&coai;^«)'i ./on bluco s.t.fT'?,bftft"T?^ ^^-«;t cfflss ill e:}r;i Gfi aio'istf fcxui 
lalTTf ©ft? a.s imjo^ -^ol c^oiib-rfev ^) ^iB^tcfo o& do©qx^ 

>L D. GOI.BY, 


Sol D. Golb7, a privi^" 11 tec ilVe, "operating under thi#% 
name and style of Co-Operatlve Service Company, brought an action 
against defendant for $191,95 for a balance alleged to be due him 
for detective services rendered defendant. The cause was sub- 
mitted to the court without a jury and after evidence heard tkie 
coiirt found the issues against defendant and assessed plaintiff's 
damages at the sum of $191»95. Defendant appeals from a judgment 
entered upon the findings* 

Plaintiff's theory is that defendant, acting through one 
Metzger, its Chicago agent, employed the plaintiff to make an 
Investigation to determine whether fraud had been practiced upon 
defendant in the procuring of certain policies upon which claims 
by the beneficiaries of the policies were then pending. Defendant's 
theory is that any investigation made by plaintiff was not made at 
its direction nor request, nor upon the direction nor request of 
Metzger, its Chicago agent; that plaintiff made an investigation 
at the request and upon the liiring of a third party, Simon Herr, 
in nowise connected with defendant; that there was no contract of 
employment, express or Implied, between plaintiff and defendant. 
In support of its contention that the judgment of the Municipal 
court should be reversed, defendant contends that plaintiff had no 
standing in a court of law for the services alleged in his complaint, 
because he had not complied with a then existing State statute and 
a City ordinance requiring private detectives to be licensed, and 
that "where a State Statute or City Ordinance requires the licensing 


Uivt X ^' ^ <^ Ua;^ 


•^0 ?!OB?I^O SOT V ...... /lAJSAOa SOI'. 

^iic J;J a 

fi©l:;to« UB oA^jJoicJ ^\;ai3qiBoC soIvigS »-vJWai»^0-oO lo Blxia Ikis ru.ra 
-due ssw seiieo ariT , i^nsljaslsb b&iBbasi qboIyi&z evtiOBi9b io1 

iasi^bsil A moil;q3 ^££sfci£©loCl »^^,Ii?I$ lo isixe sxfJ d"* Bssaaaft 

♦ aanibnll 9ri.t noqu Lsis^Jna 
©no iisiroiiiJ- iixil^oe ^^tnafenslsfc ;Jsxij e.l •^loejlJ" a^lll^aialH 

fiCA 93L3IU od' lllJ-fllBlq sftd- fee^olqiss ,;>-flS3£ o^sotilO tiil tieas^oii 

8ia±«Io iloMv/ floqii ssiolloq iilsJieo lo snlnwoGiq ari^J ni iti&bnelBb 

z^in&tael&a .gulfaceq nsrid' ©isw asJtoIXoq s/li 'to ssl'iBlsllsnecf ©fW x<f 

i« 9f)i3ffl doa Baw 'fii:;tnxBlq ijcf ebBO nold-sslcfBsvisx ■%ia& isili el x^o*^^ 

lo iawjpsi IOC noljoeaii) «»il^ floqw ion ^is&ssi>&i toa aolSoeilb ^St 

flol^figlctBaviii: net Qb^m lyi&aiBlq i&di liaei^a ogBaJtilO zil ^i©8s;t»M 

^n19H aomto ^x^isq MMc^ r> lo saltiJtfi Biit aoqsj baB it&vpei esii ti 

lo ^cjsxtnoo on esw eied^ ;tBil;t jd-n^finelsb jdi^lw bBioeaaoo oelvioa al 

,iasbae1cb JEacu llJtd^GiBlq aa&n^Bd ^feeilqal lo aaenqxe ^cfnsiintolqm© 

IsqioJjttuM 9fi^ lo (tasiaaliiit ®^^ ^'^^^ aotSaeSaos e*i lo j-aoqqre nl 

on b£rf lliSnlsIq i&tli &ba®iaoo iasibaolBb ,l)«8tsvei scf fcljjode j-ii/oo 

^ctal/ilqjEoo alii al bsselljs eeolvieK ©rii^ i©l wjsX lo intsoo a nl 3fllbnB;>'8 

baa &isJiiiiQ ei&Sb gnlJ-sixa iioilj s iijl* JbslIqicoD iJon fJBd sri sei/BOscf 

bOB ^Lseaeoll sd oi esvlctoe^sb ac^svliq j^fllnliipai aonaalJbio xSl'O b 

gxitgnsoll oxiJ^ eailupei iO x^iO rro & sierfw" i&cLi 


Of a business, the obtaining of a license Is a prerequisite to ' 
the maintaining of an action for services rendered in connection 
with said business." While this contention is not without force, 
we prefer to decide this case upon the merits. Defendant next 
contends that the finding of the trial court that there was a con- 
tract of employment between plaintiff and defendant is contrary 
to the manifest weight of the evidence. This contention is clearly 
a meritorious one. The overwhelming weight of the evidence shows 
that plaintiff was engaged to make an investigation by Simon Herr, 
a well-known attorney, practicing at the Chicago bar for many years, 
and that it was distinctly understood between Herr and plaintiff 
that the latter was to look to Herr for compensation in the matter 
and was not to look for compensation to any other person, Mr. Her3p»s 
testimony as to the aforesaid agreement was corroborated by the 
testimony of Maurice Ruttenberg, George Erickson and Metzger. It 
is difficult for us to understand how the trial court, under the 
evidence, could find that defendant employed plaintiff, through 
its agent, Metzger, 

It would be higlily inequitable to permit the instant judg- 
ment to stand and it is therefore reverse*. 


Friend, P. J,, and Scanlan, J,, concur* 

££oi:fo'iuaco ax bsiei^si aeoivofia ^ol aol^ofi fts lo sxxiowutnijsc; sii^f 

^soiol J-uoiiixw item €1 xtoiinstix©'; aixid- ellfiff ".ec^ittaiKJ bise ifJIv? 

ixen cfafiQaal^Q ,B;fli»ffi &iii Baqn bb&o BMi sfclosfc o) is^QTcq 9w 

Xiisi^aoo 8i ;fxsfc^s'ia& fea* tliiJiilalq fte«wd-e(f imtax^lqiRB to io&ii 

swona ®©iS9£ilvs» ©d^ lo #itsi«w 3iti:»X8XJwi«»vo aril' ,o«o axJolioilisH b 

^^•i©H ixoiEiS \cf aol;J-BSi:#®9vxii: cua (»](jsis ©i" fcesis^aa sew "^liiaJtiBlq ^jwi;? 

^3T£Bsx X3ttaa lo^ asa ogsoiriw efi;!^ t& saioxa^esiq ,'^en'iodJjB aw©£Erf-XI«r e 

3*W»H .-jdsS .iioe'xsKi isiid-© y^us «J ja€>i::tasjs®qiaojj aol afooX od ^oa e«w Jbas 

ari^ ^sitoi/ ^irujoo Xoi'xcf ©j^d- r,mi feijuad^a'ioJbiajy o4^ «xr lol ilssxitWlh el 
ri$i/o'i^ «ltJ:^nl.«Xq fee-^olqer© ^fuslita© a '^l) cfjail;^^ ball f?Xi/o£> ^oMWfcJhre 


^tls appeal hy def«niaatft, Mike Mmsk and Marie "Uruk, 

his wife, a«®.ks t© re vera® a decree entered in f&vor of plaiB- 
tiff, stsjaley Urvkk, in aceordanc® with tim yeport aad r&coiB«s£ii» 
dation of th« master iB ahanaery to wMtm tii® @«ms9 had tM»@n 

Plaintiff's camp laint fil®<l Aagust 20, 1938, alleged 
substantislly that on and for a long time prior to Jepteaber 7> 
1935# 3ae was th® own©r of tbt property at 243^ Bmith ^th av^mie, 
Cicero, Illinois; that said property was improved with a two-atory 
building, free and clear of incimbr&aces, exempt ciirrent taxes^ 
and that it was i^orth about $10,000| tiiat for sometise |3*i©r to 
September 7, 1935* he lived with dsfendants, his son Mike Mruk, 
and JJsrie Mruk, his daughter-in-law, who oceuplmi th# flat on thie 
second floor of s&ld buildingj that for the piarpose of ii^uclng 
him to convey his property to th@m, defendants on or &\m\xt Beptemher 
3» 2.935* "did fraudulently, wrengfally and deceitfully state 
and represent to the plsintiff that if t^ v^uld eonvey th® said 
property to th^m, that they would b@ very kind to liia as long as 
h@ should live and said defendents stated tlisit in consideration 
of thsir love and ef feetion for plaintiff and in consideration of 
t!i6 aonveyanc© to them of said property tJi&t they would furnish 
him with a good heaae sind all th@ necessities of life as long as hft 
should live J " th^.t prior to the time these statftiaents were aade 
"defendants had treated the plaintiff with great apparent kindness 
and oorisideration and pretended to be very solicitous as to pl&ln- 
tiff»s welfare and plaintiff s&ys that he w&s tbus and thereby 

OiLt «o ^8ll sxt^ iJliwSl »JtnjsJ^ baa 

Cjb seal ea al/i (Xf fifiJbi \n»y »<f J^Xifeir y^j^^ ^ait^ ^mtdi o;i x;f'zoqoi:q 

HoJUinelilajfioo al ^Mi b^iaS^ a^taifeit^lsi) fei:«a tos s'vH blimim td 

lo noJtJijrtftl>la«oo al bast l'*Jtinl«Xw nol «oi^©»ll« b&B •¥©! rrlsff;* lo 

rftlnij.'l bjMGfn x<^^ tMdi x^iaqo«iq Mas lo asMiS oi eonisxovaoo arf^ 

ml MA saol S3 &11I lo &ri>lSle.»»t&a extt Il£>, furs dsoif boog a dilw iiiil 

ffiisld^ ikM dmeivmd oM Um.% im l>@li0V@4 iafeMants intended te 

Q&vry out said proalaffis aM «&gr#eai®nt»| ^ Umt "rm rolled ^p&n said 
Jitat«aieat8« pronisvB an<i figi^<n8ftmt| '' tb&% **ho h&d ne Me&us of kuowii^ 
that said promises, st&tem#£it» aM a€r9«a«nt wsrtt fr&vibauI«fiLt and 

fiecftitfutl and were a&d® for His pirpoae of ah®«tiis^ and defr&mdiag 
td»|« that '*in full rell&isee tlMsreoa, @ja t©-wit» ^ft«iab#r 7, I935, 

by M>i warranty d«k®4 of timt Aat*, lie coiiv«jr«4 s&id property to th® 
<a«ff«MMt», MilE«^ Mruk ®M M&yl® Mr^., as Joint t«a«its|« tSmt «to»i» 
of tlE^ aiitoi!i»iits« pTtmim^ or r<@prts@iitif.tioass £i»ide )»y a^feBdasts 
««ir« ]*eiu#«sci to writing &M t^t t^ ii&id deed to Vt» dmt%musit& 
$0£it&i£ti@d 230 i»>tie€) of &w of t&ii p&.roX projsiftos^ st&tos&ats or 
ropr^s^ntations aM tlmt all »^d psrotti^osy statonoats aM 
r«piNi3@jaitotioi3.s wore by puiri^X)* that ^ ''r@a^i<r«d 130 eomsldor&tiosL 
for s&i.d (lo#d «M that tho a^fsMeats nt all times wrojagfolly^ 
f»m4ultatly aM d®e«itfully int^Med to &hmt ^M d-Hpaut t3m 
plaiatiff of his property and iiit@M®i to olatalu said property 
wltlaoat ^aylag any aoosid© ration tlMrafori** tliat **«ift®r tlie ao»- 
v^yaiMj® of s«,i4 frojmrty 't^y tbe pUisitlff to the d^f @Maats, ** tbsy 
"^©atocl to s^w &^ ldLnd!3«ss or .aonsid^r&tio^ toward pXstiuMff and 
aogl^fitiKd bM r«fujod to properly proving for tiio plaiatlff &s thsy 
Ijs^ &|r«®i to do;"* th&t '^os JUia© a?, If^, for tii® ^irpose of carry- 
im <»^t t^ir pl^n ikJiii intemtioiik to eliMt ami S«fraM plaintiff , 
t^ pr©p®r^ was traiisfffirr®4 or #3galiaj^#4 for Um ^mslmB at al26 
loaoimJa aw^s^, Ber^yn, liliiaoisf tMt *^tli<SMmfter tii0 said B@rwyn, 
lUimi®, property w&s a.x8liii.i5g#4 for fr©f®rty loeat®<i at 5^2 Byrd 
tmA, Hirersifie, Illii"ioi»l''" tiat ©a P^braary 28, 1938, Uia lust 
®®»tioii©cl property w&s traded for ]prsp@rty loaatefi at 3744 cUntoa 
aveims, B^rwya, IlHooi^,, whore %M 4«f«Mant3 m»m r®aide| »od that 
mM ijroporty i» subject t9 #, aortgag® ©f ^Jt^'O, pityn^le i» aontteOy 
Instidlaofits of S30»53. 

21» coi^lalJit ftll@«®a father m&% lifter aefoadi&iiti recolfo4 
title to th® first piece of pro^rty, they cofiameneea e cwirse of 


0$ ii^tScsoMiEil aSimi^ulfiti bm%tl»ii mi ^mU Mm N>Vl«»cft taut ft«Mll. 

jalkr«ilf»fe jbtijyt jyai^ ^''^ /^t^"^ %;^aai ft^s^^f Ihi.; li^'^ilaasfe 

'^tds oS "^i^wi^ -..^--^- .li-^s-moi ... ^ ^ .. ,.-_.^' ■-- •• - ........:%tam eld xH 

•^'i:s;|e*i^ hl&^. jsti*' ^"- • - .^iifflJL Iusa x*'***^*^ «Xi? lo alt; 

,jr|vi»^ i>|£« mis -im^Xm-. -4^ ''tsXfltfiXXXX ^^v%i&& ,^ma»9» Amm0 

M:t& S;^!^ ii' &«4^»9X '^"Xt^s'iiq ^^^ 1- '!» B^m x:tx9f^isnti ««loalXXX 

XXiUfKM oX ditfjn 10 «:i4$;|^'£Mai s i4i^& «X X^7*q4r»% t^Xnt 

•c<«^? ^ thtavffXXa^tal 


©j-a®!, ttiaSdUad bM in^mma, tK'mtsmnt tamM plaintiff, refaaiag 
t® fundfth liim propor food, sisd ia»,gl#ct<8d l& airow &xxy consideration 
f&v hlM aomfort &M welfare | %h&% la Jaly, 1<?3B, def«t.B«laiiU cruelly 
«iSiiii'«iIt«Ml plaintiff, Uir9^ hiM ©at of tb«iir hoiae &,i3d 3iior« out & 
imrrant wlilah brooglst about his arp«»t| tli^t the «nmkiM, inhuman 
tWJatsient wMcJi h» raaeivad b^eaa© «o mi3l»«aPiibl« tJiat fe» left tii« 
hMM of dot «BS^Lat»| ** that h^^ no longer ir«^id@s with t&^&, r«ceiv«a 
ISO support f roa umm aM 1» f i»iiu?fiil #f tto lmj?» feliey ai&y ^o iitai} 
and tMt ta® d«f©nsliint«, ml#®a r^sstrmined toy an ©ra«r of ©ourt, 
lEtll »«11 ©y trwisftr tM pr©F«rty or ^i&c«^ fm't^asjr 

the eimpl&lat eoiteslaidiod with tho following grayer » *»Thftt 
tfe» C«ttrt find that upon tJse eoawyameo of tlie »«d«i property to 

tJio d®f«ad&nt» ti5*.t tfeoy Weasse -trmft^®* t^r®fw, ua«a@r 8 ea®;- 
«tr«fcetir® trust, m^ t^»&t tto a&let trmt ppoperty fe# jr#Ii@md by 
U» «©«'t to tk® property wMo^k is now o»^ 1^ Vm ^f^mmkU, 
aM taat tlse aomrt flM tl»t mU '^mmrtr lmm%®4. at 3744 Clinton 
AvosBio, Berwyn, IlliiK»is, i« asm owma &M ^M by ^s ssl^ dofoM- 
ants aa -« sonstaraotiv® trust for ^® ms« aM boitefit of %im 

n^% on ao^oiinting mr ^hm€ ^%mm iM pl&intlff and 
tlift «l®f«M&nt« a® to ill® w%lm ©f Wm n@>i& property -©enf^^yta to tim 
^y plaintiff an^ as to t^- mlm of t^ mM frof<trty wiiie^ tte 
4sf«^iytentii »w ©im tte«^h irmrloiis tr&io® mM, trsais&ctions, ant tlml 
If it bo found ttet the s&i^ p*op#rty mw o«aei by th« d^foniiants, 
as tr^ta«s mnaer &. con^tr^oti^ trmst for tl» feoaofit of tho 
plaintiff, b« of l©sa ¥€tlu« tlian tl» property originally oonvoyod 
to %imm by th« plainUff, tl»t tMs pl&inUf f »ay imvo Jud4S»«at 
against ^m 4€f«naimts, ani ®*ek ©f t^«», for th« dlfferonco In tbm 
Y&Xmtiim of tim aald p-opertioa. 

^mmt tl^ Coort ©n^oin tM dofoxMlanta, an4 oaeh of tkmi« 

froa stelHag or eonvi&ying, mM property now owned by thoa, or fro« 
oua^abering it in any aaimor nnUi ife® furti^r ©rd«r of the court." 

(Kiel «t» ^pm t^^ ^''J^'' <^^^' 

4'ii<«&i/v-w'^ a«i«y^ijju 

, Z9tno 

i/i ©tf fills I *£® X$ iifil^i^i Mki "SAtSlESl^ 10 II IMS lilw 

iio^^ttt:, 14^ .j^i &®4ij»o<iX it»«^tv : #ariJ bait in«»0 «£^ ^juiJ Jbisu 

-l»R©t3l> &JtMi «9dl t^ M®f' tm^ &«cwa ««/. .'tmlXit ^at«rfv^a ^«iltt«vA 

«iil# f;. -!^ l«Ji«i ma diSt lij'' 

< yitttlAlq 

D«f®i)d&nts* SiXmvmTf Sitteiv adjBitting tlv» various allogatloas 
&t tim QomplMtut vtlth r^tmr^-jmm to tikm transf erring &a& trading of 
tbt various places of praparty, aeaied that Xha first pi@c« of 
property, wliieli waa oonr^yed to tlies by plalatlff, was worth iiilO,000. 
It fartJi«r d«nl®<i that tiisy h&d fr©a<iuleatly, wroilgI^iily and deceit- 
fully ml@I@S &S& ^«e0lv»d pl&lntlff mi& that ti:j^Qy li«d l2it«M#4 to 
cheat asd a«fr&M iilii| th&% plaintiff r«Il@4 upon fal»o psvmla99 
su&de by tte® wl^ea ha ooav^yed th» propertyi tuat th@ i»ub»e^aent 
tr&ri»f©rs of til* fro^s^rty wer® ja&d.® for the i^urposo of cfirrylai oat 
j^jsy pX%a of t^lrs to el%e&t and iafrand pX&lBtlff | and that plaln- 
tlff vae aci^P«X®d to X^ave tho hewi @f S<£f@M&jats« 

l^m <i»jasw»r ti£@A averred t^t plmlmtlif 'm>,4. llrtd «it& 
«ief@r4&ats for & loas4 tlas &ii«i waa always ivelsotae t© life i^lth theia, 
frovld^S ^is dl<l not be^ene drmik &M al»^slvej tliat defasidaiits were 
&l«£tys klM aM aoiosld^rate to liim| Umt before i^X&latlff eeisveyed 
tkm property to ^^feiKlaatSf h& oamsuXt^S aa ^ttrntrntyg i^m prepared 
Use- paper S| aM that t^ title to said property was ^aaaferr^d to 
d#feM&Bts mpon tiie pap^&t of a Xamful aonsl4erj^tl@ii am. t^t all 
«absequeat transfers of tii® prop^rt^ were aade with the i-gaowleslge 
arid eomsent of plalistiff • Tkm &mimt¥ m&)md t^% Vim compXalmt IM 
dismissed Ms&uae It failed to set forth a m0r1L%oriMi& eause of 

la lala report V^ master fmM ^.nt; ^r &) ,Xm, tbat in Jiily, 
1935» flaintiff we$ evljjt<sd %ltli Ma beloagiags fey M.« dUtughter, 
Mrs* Bulvas^ m^ l^r Imsbaii4, frosi the first floor apartssest of 
tiss presdsea at 24^6 South 5©t^ av«jme, Cicero, illlnois} that 
defeitiamt^ llve4 Im a flat em tl&e m^&md floor of said. |ir€»laes, 
f®r Hifhieh tliey Iia<i "be^m isayiag pXa^iatiff ^yo a aojtith rent| tliat 
three days after pXalstirf «a« so evieted, he a^ved Into a rooo la 
4@feM&i^t3t flat vkpmts. the iifivit&.tlon of his son Mike| that tJae 
parties &gr&®d that if plain tiff woulu eoarsy tiiis property, which 
lie oimed, to liefendaiita, tl^y w vmld giaiiitaln aM support his for 
the rest of his life &&A «ould pay for tils bux^iali tliat &bl ^epteaber 

-u^l^»:3ti»ii7 htm xJjM'i^is^^ ^x^itmXmmmnt batf x»^ ^^^ IH^AtMii 'mtl^v^ il 

•<^&«uki'i»le& 1« «md (Ml# vviiaX ftl l«i««iHM» mam lOHi 

.^a.Sif^ .^l^JN' JH^ti; iSht ^K»^ ''^i«r JMs iMii^ :^!ijSi«i a ^@1. «NfxiMb.'V«%»l^ 

»Si><>X!«r«ct.^ »iSr «0f«- iy&aia »it««» ^-x^iqeir^ •rt^ t«r^ tMH»f«Mtoi 
Mf ;ralfiX<|siE>s mt:^ SmU t'«ate« 9MrttiiA «l^ .llX;raXiiX<j; 1« iThmuhni Hui 

^<wi^ l$jit^f*!s AS-stmi L m^m *»*** *«i*^ T*^^ i*(kliiw *iol 

fld9 toiiS \&i&lAi aofe ji iii 'to a«l#».^tfnf *«i4 ftotpr *&X^ *t^^i^MM%»* 

7» X^35» iipo^ tte advice of his &tto?»«3r, pl^dntlff eenvdi^ tlii 
jprojwwrty by warranty dieod to def®fidant»| t.:.-.&t this property 'wa* 
I»t«r traded by def^Ments for property in Beriryn, tsfhich ta tyra 
was traded for & buag&lo* la Hiir®r»lde and th&t property w&» Xatwr 
traded tor th» property at 3744 Clinton «ivcnus, Barwyn, IXXlxielSji 
i^dro tb.« dftf^Mants no« rssl4@| th&.% tM Xm&t m^ntlonedi property 
is now o«i%i(i by d^feMants, MDm Mrvik. &M. Hi^rie fimk, Jointly mA 
is siibjact to & ;gortg«ig@| t^mt pl£ii»tlff h&S kis^wl^dg® of all tJte 
tzmn&fers aM ftxis^t;tA@^s of prop«rtyf a^ tim% defesiSaiits paid no 
rent stlo^e pXainilff went to Xl^e with th@«i but t^t thty p&id edl 
t&xos &iul otliftr ii3i@idi»iit&X ®xp@Bs«!<i (laaXiidliPig $13€' whieli tl^y owed 
pluiBtlff for back reat), 

IQNi im»t<3r &ft@r findiJBtg tMt tk® equities wer« wl^ plalB* 
tiffy reeeogs«nSie4 tluit j& ddcr@« b^ «attre»^ im a^eord&jse® witl^ the 
fiiMiinss of his report, tliat tlis 4@or®@ sJsm^d @ri4oi£L tli« d@foiQ^&iits 
frera trsnsfftrriag or coj^tyijag th« ra^EtX e@t«it« i30w o^sed by tlMHft 
until th® fiirthftr order of tl^e eoiairi, thst Wa» s&s® be- reref erred 
to th« m&.nt®T ter XM mvp^-m of maldtJi^ && a.aeomutiJ^ b@t«f^«m %lm 
I^UftioSj, thstt a IM^mtxt Im &nUii?®^ in f&w&r of plaintiff &M. 
mg&iviMt ddftM&ats for %im ^mmmt ^%m i^laiBtifff ^&]^ tiMt suejti 
J^idgmoiat b® d@el&r«a a lien «ii;«l»st tiici property £idw otmoil li^ 

the 4«op«® ©irerj'ul#4 ^«f©3ai&ats* ®xe®ptloas to %M SBast«r*8 
lemp&rt bM liipproTod saaa€« Aftsr fiMlBg '^tJbmt tbi! plaiatiff is in 
aoeHaing ym&rs aM that tl3@ dtfe]3<ilMt.t@ w@r@ gtall^ of fraiMtule&t 
intent in tb0 first iast&nee at tlia tiss plstiatlff aenv«yad Ills 
property to %h»mg &M tihk% fmwk ^M tsalio^ &ro tbo gist of tbo 
aotion,** tb# dmm& order^^ timt plidntirf h&w% & Hon oa tb0 
|irop«rty &t j744 aou^i CHaton areaofi, Berwya, llliiiola, aow owaed 
by dafeMaJat®, "for mi^h ^mmmt &s emy be fooad <lii© aM o&iiig him 
fw^m »&i4 d<©f %Bdifiiits| "^ aiiy. tb&% '*ub &ccoimti£tg b« bad before m.lA 
mastsp la ebaneary.* 

liofeadsnts* theory &s stat94 in their brief is tb£t '^thero 

^el«elia ^«\«psf*« ^teaffv* ««#2£Jtl& ♦l^. *» ^p^«<r«wi «f?-* w« Jb*6«ra 

iX« SiliM^ '^ttdit 4'ii^ iMt^ mm'i Mtii mil m» imm Tii»tiiM£4 mmIs ta«t 

ii^a«tei%«l^ mAt &i»l0» ble<m^ 0rss>«»L i?/^? J«i^ ^i%i»^9^ hIH te kinttoll 

ilam ^a^i^ i^m ^r:MaXAL% mat ^amai& «a wft t^a rtiwli * tusti&a 

«*^»^«^ i»i.^ &s «imJM'4.@'^f£t »«#iB tfMifiiiil > »»i S>r ' i<PW i mmi^ *dK 

«ft !• #«la 9^ 9%n »eUim hem bmm'k JddJ tftHa «Mhl# e^ t^«4|«<sf 
btmm wm ^ttJtmUll ^%;0^*n ^^itm^rs mUalld mm^ ^Tc !« t^»9««9 

** »\:-ii^iifim\u Pit tv^CMl 

waa Q® proof of acttisl fr»M, e© ps'oof ©f a oonfid'diiti&l ©r 

fldiiciary r^latlonsliip, a© proof of facts constituting & cca*- 
fitructiv® trust &M ii@ faraad er saliae in the cas<a| Uiat U» 
convey&iaet w&s absolute and volmitary, that yi« defetedant* w«p« 
alw&ys willing and &re still s^iliing t© support tbft plaintiff but 
tJiat the plaintiff voluittixril^ absented hlaself from timir hoam 
withouit Justifiable causa mid Ui&% thsy ar« iiad«r £K> obligation to 
support «»« plaintiff ®ls«i!i'b®r« » ** 

flidntlff's Ui#ory is tlmt «»fe««sms« of tJje ago ftM Infir- 
mity of tSw plaintiff, U.M t)«eauw of other eircusstanees in 
coBiWOtioR with ti3t« r^latlonsliip ©f t^ plaintiff and defend&ata, 
& fidaaliu?y rolatioiisblp ®^st@4 b#t«e#ii tlao parties • th&t booomso 
of the fiduciary relationsiidp, th& conveyasaoe of plaintiff ♦» property 
to tho dofomlimtft^ was luido ond^r Bueh elr^umstaiioos tliat ths 
dief®n«Sants ought r»t la equity aM gao4 conscienae bo p«rmltt«d to 
bold It, an4 at eourt of et|Ulty will raise a trust by e©ii«tru©tlon# 
Tlsat under tia® olP«uaiat8uae®»# tM iur4@ii of proof w&« upon tl» 
d^fend&nts to show that tr^o trai^^aetlon was fair, oqul table amS 
Just. Tlmt tb» eviataoe shows tlB&t tte dsM of plaintiff *s property 
to dafondaat was obtained by fraud, &wi tho subsequent breach of 
oontr&at of tiio defsmifents &M tiMir tro&tMont of Va» pl&intlff was 
sufficleat to r&i»« & pr®isuiiptl©n of frausi in tho first Instance 
at the- tisi® tho property «a» ooiweyM* 'rhat tl» deer«® of tiie oourt 
is fully »upport€?d by %lm &ri^mjm& &M by tiio ploadlngs.** 

Tho faets &» ppouontod in ©Tidano® befor® tho lisater aro 
praetlceJlly undisputed, «xs«3pt &s tiasy ooneernod an «ilt©rc&tlon 
botvoen plslntlff and on® or both of tbo defendants in July, 1933, 
Pl&lntiff , Stiinley Mruk, *^o was sixty-five yours old in 1935 
«tM is isow isbout sovanty ye&rs old, 1^ tii« father of tw sons, tli« 
dofeadaat UXkM Mruk and '^mlt«P Mmk, and on® daughter, Mrs. Bulvas, 
For isany y«ars prior to July, 1935» Stanley Irak ©wnod froo and 
eXoar of incu^r«%nc@, oxa^pt tsxoe, & t«o->story brick QUlldlng 


-^liVa fer« »«J9 «««# *t,^ 6^2#*s.3»<l» talis- »1 t«*4^ «*tlA;riii«K 

,8^1IMS[ «««U- «ii^illMt^»i» «Q9 £if(M ^m^ui t»4'ImM bam iimiii aiAX& ^^«&a«l«& 


&t 2436 outH 50th u.Y®a», Ci&^it&f lllXxmiSf nnA rttjsld«ci with his 

B&rrlteJ aaught«r, krs, lliilvas, oa i;la« first floor of said bullciing, 
wliile dfflf® -idsiiits, 'i^kj» Mruk &£id *iarie Srak,. &a«i their t»© aiaor 
oi'dldrem r«sid@cl on the 800e»d flcM^r, tbe 4&ui3iterp Mrs* BttXvss, 
&£^ her iMsb&i:^ paid tm rent to pliiiiitiff l>ut g&ve iiitt h±s b&&M aoA 
r&<m ia ©xalmBg® tti&r&fOTg wldl© dfef^adants paii pl&intiff « aaanthly 
rsotal ©f $^» Iji Jmiy^ 1.935# pri©r t© ti» ©3?igia&l e©ERf«3raL»e» in 
question^ i^'fs, Bulvas axuS be? MsbitHil thr«w plaiiitif f * s p#7se»Bul 
belongings ©mt ©a Ui® baek j^oroii s.M @J«t«t®d liim fr©ai tMlr apart^ 
Kmnt, Fl&lntiff m&r^d hX& toloogings int© th« iJi^^.^M^Et ef %i» 
pF@mi.s«s siM tbide d^grs later-^ upon t^%e intritatioii ef UiJm Wjp&k 
imrM iat® ^le second floor fii.t witfe i^f^Mants* hX t^t tia» 
a®f®3a^«iits ©t«©^ pluiatlff *18Q hm-ak Mnt, wliiek t^y l&%&f |>aid 
Mm is fall* Sarly ia a«|»t«ii^«iT, if 3I, &tt0T pi&iatiff l»i fe®@3a 
livlwg wltib. 4«f«M&jitffi f©r s«v«ral w@^ks, )m sM Ms son^ MUss Mruk, 
callM st tfes® office ©f ^©«fli ^,« lisn^to, ail at's^rBsy. 4t tl»t tiisa 
plElntlff fair© att©jrnsy lll^aha all his |3«rsoiml psip^rs &sd stated 
that he <i0sl3?®d to convey the titl© to the property at 24 j6 Eoath 
50t& ©Titms©, Cie@ro, lHlR©is, t© M.s som aa^ aaiigkt^r-in-law. Mile© 
Mrmk »n<3l Msi,jri$ lamk, tlae ©©nvoyaa!©® ^as »a4® ^30^ th® 4®«4 3P«©©rdeid, 
It ifaa tJ"i«H «aclftrstoo<l nad &gr©«4 tMt d©f©Maiit« were **to f©©<l, 
isoard, cloth® &M 3miMt»iM i^laintiff iurlug Urn tmmSj^^r ©f his 
lifstli^ sM -previa© him with, a ii-©©iit hu^&l wl»a h© ii©4,*' fhere- 
aftey plaintiff liv©d with d^f^jadfests f©r t^s© |r©fers, until July, 
19JS, with©at oonplaiat as t© hia^ trsatassat. On July ^^ 1936, 
4#f€iRsS8.iits, with Wm c©a»®srit &al k3BW9'®l®<if© ©f pl&iiitiff, eissim»ged 
tone- property f©»«»rly owri©d Ijy thsi latter for property i©#at©d at 
ai26 -'Mnoaah ^wmsm, B@ng^, Xlllaois* Plaintiff 4oi»ed with defexid- 
B.nt» in aonv^yiag title to th© a®w owners. In Febra&ry, 1937# 
d^fetsaiantt «txc.haag®^ tSa© -"^©xionah &ir®as*B js^oj^rty for pvepmrt^ loceted 
at 562 Byrd road, f:iv«rsid©, Illinois, subject to a ^Jt^^OO as©rtgag©, 
fher#ef t©r, in February, 1930, d®f«*adisjata s©ld t^e Kiirersid© pr©p«rtyj 
r^Ci&iviiig $3,100 c&ah for tlrioir ©t^uity in a©a» wid iiaaedi&tely pur- 


tU il»Mi is»&um turn ^$tJbmUJLX t&<s^»i£ ^mtmm iMR mitm MJ^ ^» 
^a^tuLli^ bi«^ let temJkt $&%X1 ^' mi ^9tx(vU-U ,9i'm ^'^s^tfiMM^ iNMewMHk 

£ii'mHUiiE^v»0^ Ixml^i'-m mi ^ %*y£mi «^<£^X «\£tf^ .«i^i- *^<^ 'It Jji0n»n. 

«KJU #ftti^ ^/. »«^£&si^mtt»j» mt^ $iil\ imil% immm «^ wHik 
tXm ^tii»l %&r.i^ dSfM'K t.f%t#% 3iL»M^ ij^i^ 'MiJt^n^^S^ btmm 

Mtma H^i-- i^ ^i^^^-ifSk »4S m Pli^M aii^ ymai» «# im^Jonf^ mi itsiu 
«M^ |-«&£*«l~'2.^4iir^»i> mm ««« a|^ A^ ^iJtaMi UXI ^9vmiSi tiHinii- IBKN: 

«f)«»l @^^' «T«^ ^^^i<^r^t.j%<N»t.: t.^<^ £»<^#%£^ &a& ftiMHlK^niMI^ 4MMI ft«ir j^ '. 
,\JU;^ IMsuu fcje'i.u&'t '>-<^*»i!# 'S<»'l 8JiMiMi»^<il MM t*^U I'iMatMl^ %9$%^ 

<-i09leb tUin hmXni Iti-tmXsil^ ^it^imtllll ^Ki0mf& ^wmmm Ammm liSiL:- 


chased itoe property vvbere th&y Bom refilde in Beriryn, Illinois, 
aobj^et to a $4^000 stortg&gOy usixig th« ]»ojcv»y rdceivod frcoi tto 
s«X« of th» Riverside property ea a down payrsent* if'lalatlff had 
Joiowl«dg« of and Apparently aeqiil«so«d In «^1I thm foregolAg real 
«8t&to transactions by d@f«ndants« At l^&gt he mov^d with thoM 
froa oa« building to tlm ©th«r ssid aontliaied to liv« ?ilth tiam 
?d.thout protest of any kind eoncarsslag said su^aesslve tr-ansac- 
tlens. D«f@tidantft piald »Xl %&xe%, speclitl t-»si^$:.i»omt3^ interost^ 
oest of repairs und lncl<l@ntdL ex|»@mi«s on all tla@ prop@rtlos since 
Septeaifeer 7, 1935* including buck tsjcss tlmt |>Ialntlff ®«»d at tla« 
tiat of %im original eonrr^yanoft • 'Uring &il tiia tljie plutlntiff 
liv^ffS with defendants li« liad a ro©® for iiiaself &M received his 
Hoals, clothing and i^shias without any ^x^xm® to iiissolf, 

fti»r & olo&r^i* und^rsta^Mting of isih&t oaattrr^4 om tJbe 
ooansion of ttio altore&tioa 'l^atw^en t^ p^rtt^B. on JiaXy 23, If J3, 
it is n©oe»*i.sry to s©t fortii th«ir testiaiony som^wjtot f-ally. She 
only otli«r persons «i:a» «ltn<»ssed tMs. ait©risstlan wore 4@f«naajits» 
minor cMlalrea an«l t^y did jsat t«sti.fy. 

Plaintiff, £t&aL«y Mrmk, testifiM &i& fallows* "^^ ^i^tmt 
tltt@ did you ceam hoiit that tv@iiinst 4« I «ouX<i say &li»omt nino 
o'cXook in the «v®iitng, ^i* tell ins wiiat you ^id w/ien you c«jae acmol 
A, On th«it evening Umt I im's ooiyLag lioaii I seen tl^ f«ally sitting 
la front of a diff«r@nt lioms^^ &M J 'p&s^od hy axtS wsnt into ay 
property and sat dmim. oaa th@ st&lrs for & «Mle and then I sa« 'th«B 
ecHBO In, Ttmy eame in frc^ tl)«9 n@at asigi^ltor^ opaned tho door, got 
Uato t^o house and looked t^ tSoos". Q. 0© on and toll wlwt happens^ 
i^mt fmx did ftni wb&t thoy did? A. 1i@n I saw Um% th«y tumo4 
tho kisty in tk@ d^sr so 1 got m|» rlgkt ^m^y and said 'lioro I belong 
to tMt& imim, thl» is a^ property* dnil M am&» & notion ana struck 
»o »lth his h&nS. Q, Oo on ai^ tell wl»t ol^o happan^d? A, Me 
eaUad as & 3od-<4a«a robbor and I s&ld *I am not a robber boaauso 

ymx stol® my bon4s and yon stole ay property,' Q, ;»hat elso 
hftpp«a®d1? A. Aad te shovM uo out and 1 ar^^l^^*^ layself ftlon^jsldo 


fliti^l' 4^J»r ^v«ijfi «d $(iA»l S^- ^M^mam^yli^'iti \ti SM9iJ?i^'.imjsni ^tii^*9 
tmH^ iSIJtw mJU o^ Jb^^jftfJUiio^' Ma^ 'ma^Q miS iljud. ^ao mnl 

MM&Ut »«lt-x{>f»-x<^ ta^jJ ll.n no «,t»«iXtJiL^^ X^^^ii^blooi baa S' '-o taoo 

si^ •xXii/1 tgnfififmium 'iPiOssiiJs.»i 'sl^xi^ ijh^tdl. #»«t ctjf ^tA^tAoaa iX ^1 

UiXii JtSfOtiU 1^ &uUi&7 #A<y MMli «IM>9 m\ filb «KJU 

SbJU^JUi \IJtflMt e^ ^»m ' ov.>e: .;!.;'..-.. jmii 9aliu»v* |«iU jsQ •▲ 

kmaiM^ \*tU Jau^ %^d^ ^dwiw i^su l>ife t^^ ^«^ 

aM U tlKiCft XX«a iifla no c .^cuif nisi Hila Ml 

ecium>«d -x^ud^iri /i jotj ae^ ^KHAilh-lMti} « «mi i><XIa9 

th» b&nnlster oi* wlistcir^r thsr® was so he woulduH tliirow a* 
doiiimstal.rB^ ko I woal<l not fall i@%J3istalr»» Q* ^.nythlzi^; «ls«« 
did sinybody lilt yexxlt A* Mlk« fttruek »« fir at la the kltebta 
ftnd «rh«n ti^ey weF« shovloji; joe out bis t»oys atruck fits with 
iastrtswint* I don't km>% wh<?th«r it w&s a kaife or fo^k or 
instruaiea^t* Q« ^ore you bjirt? &• Eiis «dfe slso strvbek aae «ith 
6 Qh&iT &nd I pushed t^9 chair to the sid® Mid tb»n UiUm strmok ae« 
pat Ms fi£ig«r iB »y i^utb &M X l&lt M£& finger & lit lit bit, Q* 
it9@ri» did you go tl3«ii'? A, Th9:n &t%^T i^mn i bit hll& fijag«r a 
Xlttio bit he hoXIersMd to sei^iiie g®iitl#]^ui over thoi«« I think IM 
•aldf *Joe 0009 on &M help* luiii tliaia aft@r thoy go altogether &b41 
go in &n autoi^bil® &j^ w@nt ftivay* ^« ^^ors you arrested shortly 
aftsmardt A, My h^ad «as all bleeding aami eut and I wont over 
to ^ d£.ught4@r in i^cir^yn^ and thiey wars th^sr® looking f^r so* ^* 
Uti, th® poliae arrest yoa shortly tJseramft^r? a, the polls* 
di<^*t t&k@ me. Th«ir« «aa a l«dy that eaUeil m|$ tlia polios and 
thiry eatm® Qv&t stM took ns. Q. Mmn. f9^ w#ro arr«»st@d did yoa 
spend tli€ niiJ!it in 4ail? Bid yom stay in jail on® ni^t? A« Ifos^ 
in lail I «aa oi»t oight* Q« %o& tli® oas@ o&is« up for trial h^fero 
th« J^g® is4j© was tliero? A, i8lt#r, hist islf« and JaUsek, Fro» 
t^ir side only Hikers «if«)» |» i^tsr tl^ trial lAaor^ did y«u go 
to liva? A, I went haok to Mlim Mr^ t^ liv®. Q* liow lon^ did 
yoa stay th@re~2 4, Qn«! w««k# q» low did thsy treat you? A, 
fh<&y didn»t tra&t bs very good th@re, fb&f ^oly gav« jse vary little 
to ©at, Jast ©ao^igh t® k tp on. *** Q# Did they talk to you any 
aft«r yott f»nt laick to liv<8 thsre. A, a© oi^, H«ither Mike or 
hia idf$ or tha hoys talked to em during that tiinft. Q. ^hon they 
aat do^a to oat did thay oall yomt A, '>^h«n I eaae froffi work I had 
to «atoh then heoauao thay noror aallid m» to oat, and than after 
tliey got through I want to oat. Q* ^re you hungry at tiaoat A. 
In th® ^orninc I fijc my^elS: aM iioon tiju» she aometiaes fixed a 
little aM also in the evening. Q. «>fter th«y had finished thoiv 
dinmsr iribtat ««uld Mike uxid hia wife do. A* After av^it&r they all 

4i99«. ^^JKisf AH i^o«<i[J'& ^y^ &M ^jm m^i ^^^v^diU »'i,im x^&i amkut M» 

»p ,His$ £v, irtiatsJtt «J3« #Jt4 I Ais« 4fM«i IP Aft li«t(<Jt1 filii !•« 

hi\& *t»i^9j^l» (9CI t^^ 'm.^i'ta s&m;i item 'i{iw^ INxa ma «fl»o tt«^<^ «ftiM 

t£^9«^ »vt$ii*i>^%«i y&% ^^9 ^'%/mJk imm ksm ^Itiimtl^im ■« ol «s 

iinr« 4HWW I m^ 40» tarn mt^^^M .IM§ &&v bmii % '*Mmn9tiM, 

Mi^ &l:^ ^«^#4»^^i^ mm vm -^^^ *ii9!i£ ^«»«^ bem i«vo ettt$ t*^ 

««isX ,4 tS^M m& XlHi al x«^ ^'% Mvi VIi;3t ill S^M ^mH teMft 

m saf% l)l& ^'tmfm l^M^S ©lii' i^wn.' . -tlw «»fOllS XXiio »fc*« litasfii 

o-XjiU x^i^ tm mm SM^ t^^ •«t«Kl|- l^mm V^^ •« $at^ I'a&ll* x«iY 
\C« £Rv^ OJ- 3lXil^ 1E<Af3Ll &M *P -*Nfe» «ja» «f#^ 9t ifptRMW' ^ft»i «iiad «t# 

\»i& am"' ««bX^ i&Hili ipl%iiib «■ «j ;^$?il£iei^ wti9^ wdi ^ «1:lw slrf 

ban I alsosr «»«t 9if8ft«r X a«fl' V0<&'^£ XX;<«» fsdf M& iaif ^ mmtb iM 

•A VsMO^ ;>A ^;ii«fki iio\ m9i- ,im ^ turn I itl0 t ^ttJ t #«a tmif 

A l»«Ki1; mmsmum ^& iwtt ^knt^-i l»tj» lX#^s^ xn T Sftt-tntAor Mf;» mt 

xltd# jtoltoJian ^.uii X'^^ '»^^'^^ .I0^m09» fMtS al ««Xa htut •ISiiH 


wsnt ouit for & ride, tMn th%y wamXd cam® back in two or throe 

hours and th^y would bring cakes anS ftll kinas of things to etkt, 

but tii«iy aev®r eall«d WM to Mv® soaaethliis, *** Q. Sla0ir# did 

ftm go to liv« after f^u X«ft Mik@»® iwuse. A, I mtmt to tJbs 

s®coia<l soa, i®lt©r Mrok* Q» Mave you lived t^r« «v«r sine©? 

A, X®8, I am liviag t^r® now.* 

Bafs-ndjaat Miohael Mrmk testified m follows » "Q. Do you 

remember the tiia® tti«re wss im ^rguaioiit «ritli yo^r f&^mrt A, I©s, 

q» foil th@ oomrt just what tooM pl&e@ on timt d&y tbs &rgu«ent w&s 

on, w^iat was tim eaaao of it, ymix ir«rsioa of it? &• I h&p|?®aed to 

Qmm hQim wim tho family at siight sjmI h® was sitting oa ths baok 

porck bM I stertsd to talk to him niad iw all walkoa ia tlie iiouse 

aad h® oosios in tin® I-iO^w* ant just li&@ s wild wim after the whole 

bimoh of ms mad @&11«<I say wif© mmmB eM s»» Q., Was he tallslsg 

ia the a-iglish l&ngusg© or FollsH. k» In Polish, q» What kiM 

of mm&B iid he eall your wifet A, liell, hi eailt4 h®r n Slrty - 

should I say it tho i»ii.y h© »&i4 itt |, 's?eli, my it, tlsay were 

iseJMS that roflaet^-a upon your wife, is tis&t righr? A, l@s, Q. 

IJs&t ®ls#? 4, toil, th«a, afteriBuNU I startM liolding Mm back, 

he waatsd to swiag ®t me ©jai I st&rt®<3 holdlx5g/fe&«& mid 1 'taried not 

to go ahead and hart Mm because 1 diiaH waBt t© hart him, he i» 

mi old sjan -— . Q, la your opinion was y&m fiiithsr drmik or sober 

Sit the ti»«f A, He was irmak, Q. Aft#r tM® assault what ^ 

happeiie<i? A, well, I got hold of Mm miKl pmsh^«l him out on the 

back poroh &ai I though.t he nould. stay out on 'Um back porch &M 

get sober^S up and ®v«rythi3ag woult b© forgotteii, »M he coaffls in ■ 

again said st&rts eurslug &nd I got Mm oh the baok ijorcli ag«iin and 

when I cild get Mm on the baek 'poroh he soaehow or other - I didn't 

want to hit him - ^cwaaehow or othsr he got hold of my fiiiger in hie 

iieuth and he was going to bite my fingt^r off, Q, aid he bite your 

fingers? k, Y&&, he did so 1 @ven %m£> told &t thB police st&tiei':> 

to go alM&d end $e to the hos|pit«l &nd get that finder fixed Ujp. 


9snilS %0 o«4 &k iCfiiMf lui^ kXsti)^ x*ii* J'tsf^'^" ••bJt^ « tot Suo $ami 

faoela t»T» »*siS«{;f ixsvli eo\ s^* * u>iX»*/ ^aot bao9»i 

*,we« iii«d;^ salvii sa I ^eoY .A 

»^';v*Xt a£o«^ iMithf ^««jt i?i«oo *£^ XXwT ••::• 

f5OT« i4, ■, ilm.% iwCi' itJlw Mttd tflo:) 

,•♦•» X ba« sioi0<i 
»XO£ftr ^i-Ti ita^*** jx«s btU » siCiX ;f«s^ t- -i wi* fll ««•»• ©ri baa 

feJW ^Bxf? . , tlo'i Tw dBAtftOAX ffaJLXsnS «i* ai 

- t*li^ '^J 'i' ^ frr^rt'vt^ ^:' tU/ .. 'sills' liror^ IXj^O fsA btit BSMUtfl lo 
5>^i&«- x^ti-:. ^ : ;?! bJta* «rf %&■ ■■ I X*« ^ 6Xif«d« 

tt«X» l«ft 

.: AtM, »d^ ytAb $>>%( 


eixi iiX "J©;?!!.-"" - ;=:;il I 

aoX^»^i •oil©, -j-uJ :',' uioj 

.f! i;<v^.* 

i V *H ' ^ - 


5« boA xiXaift 
^. t)ll) I aacfti 
;^Xri o^ 5flaw 
'ui baA sitaoa 
, t a 1050X1 

^* ^<iuit h&ppdnedi to your father, did he go away that niehtt A* 
I frent doim to the police st&tion and fjimn I got b&ak with ttaa 
polied he was gone, Q, »h07e did you find hia'if a» '^9 found hla 
Z heli9V« on i'esterxi &Bd 39th str«et« Q, l^ld y^ou eh&se aim out 
tlmt aXght or did hn go aim/? ^« ri@ $i«iit aw&7. m was gons wiMia 
I got back. Q, £^d the poUee look for hia? A« mey took 14a 
to the station «iM X wsnt to the station &nd I sigiMd & ccattpX&int 
against tdm* Q, AtX&r h0 got out of the polios station did ha 
eoMs back to IXr® with you? A. m» Q« ^^hore did he go to live? 
il, X donH k&o«, Q. i''hsx*i did your fiith^r smxt doee baok? A« ^ibout 
a week after when he waa over in the eou^r t in Benryn, Q, i^ ha 
etasa back to liva with you? A. IM caii® the aaji»B night, he i^s 
supposed to Q&m h.&am right &ftap %rm soui-t before dinner and he 
flrat eame th&t night, q, mw long did h® ULv© with you af^r 
th&tt A, I believe asayb® about thr®e or four weeks, Q« itaa 
©YirytMii^ patched up aM isfar® you gst'-lng along all right! A. 
Sen, fef'epytiiing was quiat, that is about all, Thar® wasn't & good 
look from tdM for nobody, %» i^ifary thing was qulaV? A, :;-verytl:iing 
was fuiat, ha had all his i^^ala, everything, bra«ikfa»t, suppar or 
dinner, ha always had hia i^^ala with us. q, l$^t happened on tbit 
day that ha left? A, w&turday night ha was goiw all day aatuMO^y, 
ha was ^&m that night, it was nij^ o*clO€k, tan o'clock, «e wera 
worried about him, ha wasn't Imm, ^«11, ha had lids omx kay sasd 
at alafan o'clock i^a aloaad the door up and ^m want to slaep, 
w© didn't kiK)w what was going to h&ppam, §• Yes, A, ^-e worried 
abtmt h$M w'ixBth&e h^ got killed or southing like t^-iat &;ad ounday 
Borning 'im walked In ab^ut nin@ o'clock. Q, DidjSRi let iiim in 
that night, A. Mo sir, he coj^ about nina o'clock that morning 
%ith a truek and ooiaes into tlia house wiUiout saying a word, we 
didn't say nothing to hi« aM he started to aova everything 'oe had 
right out in th® truck, Q, ^ad you had an arguront with your 
father tha day before or laiytMng? A, Mo sir, Q. Did you throw 
r&is^ father out? A, m sir, Q, Did you aak him where ha ms 


■Id iMtol i^ v-'»M f^iil me% hlh ^^-i- ■ >o^ am s^ «i>jtXoq 

ACKfw cam «£# «fi .^j«»a i^^cr 

t«Tll •# 08 od &ilt d^^f .a «€. ^^£;ef« li^tls' ^XI Ql :i9A4 fifliM 

Off Ala .^i actir%»^' f^ i'-'-m- -m m 

fiH ten "ir^itailk '9'9«a:«^ ^^jieo m^ -i&SlLii 

&003 ij #*a9:»!f/ ©•j^eili ,.XXa ^fisaa* si <?>;**« ^a»ll^r 
fecii x*^ i^** ft-^^ ^^*^ ^-^'^ tii^' .-^itssfi .; ' 

tB&t d;^^'^> -!-.■'»•■■?'■"•, n Hid i^bci jwc-^ > •■ " 

AMT Mtf •uiiv mM 3U» iMf% hi^ .9 .xt$ ot! «A r^i/0 '»Mif el tmrx 

1 i4;££t €«Bft& #8:iXl 


04 a 

going? A, So, Q. mata *i4 you oext he&r frtMn your fattier 
after that? A, I didn't Imnr from IxiM at all after ttiat. Q» 
Never talked to IdM slm& then? A, 'Uo sir. q. The next thing 
jom imo^ tMs $uit was started^ Is that right. A. Y&u, Q. I 
thinic 1 s-skfid you whetri«r you were willing to t&ke your father 
feaak to stay with yoaf i. ?•«• *** Q. low *4i«ii your f&thsr 
left beano that «ret^Qg yoa didaH kxaow i^^re h« «o&t did you? A. 
Ho Xaft hsam th&t aeraiioe. Q. But th&t ovenicg )«^^xi you had 
the troublo? A, m, I didnH. Q. In this scufflo th&t you had 
with hia iys! got hurt didn't ho? I3id you lo^n^ your father got a 
out on his head in th&t souffle t A, I seen ti^iat when I got to 
the station «ith him. q. You didn't see that before? A. Bo sir. 
Q. H0 ims all right when he left tj«#e waa h®« that is he didn't 
have a out on his head or anything wiiea he leftt A. Ho. Q, Qidl 
you go out to look for Lim? A. Yes, X did. sfter I got back with 
the police Im was gone and 1 went out to look for !iim, Q, You 
first w@nt down and got the poliee? 1, Yes. ♦"i. And you swore 
out a «^rrant for hi»? A. I Just signed a ecmplaint. Q. to 
have hitt arrested? A. Yes. Q. Juod did you se«^ lii» again th&t 
evening aft@r they found hia? A. At th© st&tioa. Q. You saw hia 
at the stjfetlon? A* Yes sir, Q, ftliao was there at that ti^? A. 
'i^lly Just the policejEisn at the st&tion and he was there and I, Q. 
And, do you r€iBw»Btbtr the polic® sergeant asking what you wanted to 
do with the old isan and you said you diin't give a dasn what 
happened to him? Ito you remf-iaber that? A, I told aim I don't 
want him hoa® that night, to go ah«^d and keep Ida out here until 
he cools off, when he oools off t© let him come home, Q. Isn't it 
a fast that you asid to the poliee sergeant you didn't cere what 
happened o iiia, you didn't want Mm? A, I didn't say tiiat. Q. 
You left your f ether in Jail that night? k. So, I didnt. Q. You 
didn't taike him out? .4. fltey took him right across the alley to 
the hospital, q^ And brought him haok and looked him up in a eall 
didn't t^iey? a. I don't thiidt they did. Q. You didn't wait to 

^mr% mnM tmsi 4:s.9tt si9% f^iM lijoi^ 

•^ «4Mli^ ■'s&S't-i ila i»..iiia a&al liiiA i*£il' 

.& ^--os ^isdlal uawpc weer^. .mix 

seer .ojbii lait 3ioox ©^ *>«© -■ 

S&'M MJt,m^ SRM '■■^•tSif: tsisx M.b fef:. 
r.^^1 'vSisa U©a »_, ,;£i«>i^iftd:« t9<^: iJ "■. 

aula aM ,«^ >«9li,«4 ■«:«^M 

:Cii£t0^t^ :^mM «««rt ^1^1 
■ - rtvsyt^ ^MdJ- NPML *t«X ^1 

'.' tm a vvmi 

3-*i^& I MiA blKt^ 

itmiif nr^£f;':-i;s*': ircn c-§ taJfefi o^ It9!tt»«««l 

'CSV :?,^»t3 S&a,\ » 

.X». •»*.- 4*«^J.'. «/.Ai^VJ ' A*/i y,'.^._vJ l»t*». *>Al,JJ*-»> A.1 

. ft jfe'ij. ■• V-i 


j»«(i %b&t the? <^i^ ^th him 4id jott? A. Uo, I w«nt ov«r te get ngr 

finger fl£»d« <$• ^» your riioi®? imrt very betljr? A* Y«i> &lr. 
^, Ajay Gwrks on It isowf A» t&9» Q. is that wirMtr® jroi&r riiUner 
lait it^ A. I«8« it wont right trirmi^h, ttmr^ i^r® htB to^th ttarks* 
^** Q, v.:1k» took a&r* ®f that fljag«r for yott7 a.. A doe tor • «** Q« 
'i^t dlS 1^ 40 for it? A, Ha went QV®T aiied put tiM» stit@li«s en 
tMs sid® riglit here aM 4r©a»«i it ail ^ for sm, *** Q* !few, 
70U werQ vmt pTB&mi% &t tk« hmijpin^ Qn %lm c<mpl&X&t Uvskt yevL svtwp9 
tmt Rgainjit yifur fs^tiwr -^^rn /oa? j^.« MOj^ Ui® 4u4g@ told imi I doa*t 
ii&'rt to» ^^^ Q« Mr. Mrokf ^<l four fmt^r "t)&v9 a li^ to all tii® 
h0a.a<»s tH&t bo llv(^ in with /om? A. 4S lomg &s ho liir«>^ with m& 
in @vor|r otso ot tha immsa h» ^d Ms o«£i Imf* ^* ^i^ ^ ^ve a ke^r 
to th© hmkm st Clinton AiroBfiaot A, a« still got it» *** %, MA 
bo hav6' to «^it for ymi t^^t niglit to eons ^mm to gst in^^iae tJao 
bomse? A , He had Ms @im koy, ho eomld aav« gottom la aisS scnald liavn 
^Iped himsolf to oato aM &I1« '^« ?ou nmtms' Wrrod t^^ doors and 
flxod it so ttet b® c©aldE*t got im @v«a ti.oyti& .&^ Ima a koyi A, So 

&i@f@M&S(t Mari@ Krtik tf»tifi«?d &» f©llm>Bt '^Q* '^^Imt w&a 
l^m argisioiit ab@^t, "saa thoro an argussasitl »• los, thor# w&a. Eo 
oaXlod «E0 dirty aajsos. !-!« w&s drunk aM ovory tXme he mmid got drunk 
h« %hmgh% h<& @o^d Qmim la. %m& &^a« ^o* q* Did Miim tiirow IJim oat 
tbat day? A. Flo $um% pit his oat ob. tho poroh aM told Mm to ati^f 
tliaro aatil hM se^bors ttp a»d l^ tors^d ^r^uiid aad sti^rted MttljBS Mlk®, 
q, ThoB did ilko go away? k, Mik% »oat amy aM ke started exiling 
ao dirty laaaioa again and he pat M« on^t agaim. aM tli&t is ^ama. bo pat 
Ma fi&g«r in Ma siEmth* Q. Do ytgiu ^jtiow Ki^^tiior 07 m&t Mik@ ¥^3at for 
tbo polia«? ii« Yodji ha «ont to th® |»oliao statioa. Ma ermsL e&lXo<i 
a mighbor there tooeaii®® ho didisH waat to Mt M» fa^tior *-« Q* 
^'i»a did y<m noxt so© Mat A, It was a wo©k aftor that. ♦** ^» 
The« did yoa soo We* StaMoy MralEt A. y«s ii® oasa© ia tjaat Mght then, 
q* Bow lot^ did ho stay witii'yoa? k, Bireo woeka, Q. Moo, betwo^ja 

. jr fft?J tsr- f?n; 

i^&QL I mi Mo* -.,, . 
vist: Mew* ':4i«i : 


^!t3 «f' 

[SCBI&K ^'SJ &XXiW!»*- ■■■•■ 

isrf.-jt vii-ris- 


li ^»2* 

^^Dtt Jti'^dvi U eie>.iM 

(ftdj^ tdjtin imx* iki Office s«ii « 




the tlfi^ tt^t It® Qtmrn h^^k. ffcaa the pellf^ etmrt and the tlMi 
b» l@ft, jnou s&y tttr«« ifi«@kSf were ther« ati^ eirgtmsnts b«tw«en y^ou 
ft»d ^. 3tanl<9y Mruk or b«tiNi«ii jmir hasb&iijd iu3d Ms t&ihar-^ A* !:k»y 
9T€ry tilling w&s {|Ui«t^ li« .£»vtr t&lksd to nohod^^, he ^rnf^d edsw la 
for Ms eiaala» h« uttuld go «»Jit sdvon d* clock in l^ba tterning aad eow 
in eliiht «r »ln® &t night. I ^miXd vmra his iM&Xs ftM h« would go 
bask cxat &M wh«a «<t mmnX to ^^ h® ^'^tuld etette) im 6M ^wnt to btd, 
li$ B@r$r spcOcss a wox'd to ^jsgr of us* Q« r^iariJEig th<& ^r«9 inidks you 
still k«pt up tilt f&&^l^ m»49 his b94 for hlM &eij(I wasbod his eloth@s 
for VdML, did you? A. les, I did, «♦* Q* Ut> you know aay r@&soja 
wixf J^e l®ft you tJir** «o«ks latert 4, Tea, hl« son Ci^ltorl told 
Mia to leave, *«♦ Q, Did b© glv^ you sjgr ro&soia foj? lonvlng* A, 
IQlMtiro ^s&s zio r»«!Som. >'mM^ mQrjxim tlio tn;M3k aajst &m&. ^ start<sd 
i^virtg Ms $1^f out of Ms b#droott^ axsd '^ mts all exsited^ iw 
eouldnH open th@ Attic door nJadi b» utartod svr^i^rljag i^t sbb* ^hmi q^ 
He ii«v#r o&BW b^solc? A, Ho ^ovor o«me ba.ek« Q« th^ ia«sict tiJW you 
lm#if ¥<iiytMj^ «bout tid^ ycm i^ro $itig£iaoiiod';' A, f@Sj| it was tlM 
aoxt day*** 

It SipiNiar^d that '^«lt«r ^ruk imst t© tlM Bisrwsnn p©lia« 
st&tiom soi^tiiis i.a th@ siorMsig of July 24,^ 1933j» aM saw Ms fat^r 
witli cuts on Ms f&p^k^&d &M tbe h^.&k of Mii hoi^di thst 'w&lt«r 
fmrMskod bsdl for Mji and took IiSm to M» (*alt@r*«} i:«Jiao| ana t^t 
&ft®.r Ms f ether l#ft Mike»s lumm in .'ufust, 19^, he mov@d tii 
tal.t@p*s hOBOji ii^«r@ 1:^ li¥@d contixMou^l- for aoro time a yoar* 
W&Xt@r t®£tifiod Vimt Mt fa^3«r &a%s«d ins trouble wMl® livlag at 
Ms hmao. He al^ testified th%t h@ had sot so^i M^» fatter t«& 
tii^s during tlio previous tMTts©» yo&rs* 

laltar's nifOj^ Annta Mfj^, tostl-fisd tliat sbe a*w plaintiff 
©n July 23, 1938, at « fri@ad*s liqi»a ia Bftr-scya with cuts on Me foro- 
ho&d ajpd tho b&3k of Ms headi t^t h^r frieM eallod tlio polleo^ 
r«»oir«d M» to %h& hospital for tre&taent| amd that aftor pUiatif f 
wont to live at hmT hsaae in August, 193B, li« aever <s&u$«d bar aagr 

^^3K?f. .^^■.: %iiij^'3«iaj *j5ii «.* jf seised i?!!>v«« mk^ -^v ?'5jb!0^' ?<*.' ti^'^'iM «Jt«i "lol 

.■i;>'(U^'C: (if. 

^mml ttt mid 

: 4--. alii yavM 

kf^ . -- .■■^,-: »« 

filial *i^f -aKnts d:«K,i»' &ia,a \inmiia^i%i w^ Id^M^^^Mt fwi* oit mJUi b^^om^'i 

-^ rj.» .1* . * ,.f 

t^JtiiSl&i-t -^t'i's 9(E.s 


trcHil>l« find tliat he ims •wondesrful*', 

Amm lirult lat®r testified at th® hearing b®fO:r« the lamster 
©n the acaouatiiag on Oct^ar 25> 1939, that plainUff left lusr hoi&e 
two weeks previously to live with h«r iaotli®rj that **I tried to h&v© 

Mtt rake tli® leaves «lM sweep th® sidewalk -**-«** be didn't 3®em to 
■waat t© do ajiytiiirig ^■"*» he got so aoody *** I aoul<i not stand Itj** 

&2id tMt i^he and l&lter Mruk advamsed I30 ti» cciwittjae® 'this suit. 

A& i^oretofore siio^aa plaiatiff »» eompltlnt charged that 
d®f@rtdaiit« like Mrak &M his wifts, fraudulentljr ijidua©d plaintiff 
to c©av^y lii» propajfty to tti^m aad tii&t they m^d^ tfe® various 
transf@r8 sand ©j^cisanges of property In fur thermae© of tii©lr ack^Eie 
to ©host Slid d©frsud Mm. In plaintiff* brief fels eLaiia of fraud 
ia tb« psro®ur<iBi»mt of tbs transfer of th® frop«2'ty to d«>f»Bdant» 
is prMleated upoa the ^^stsno® of a sonfid'sntial rel-Etloiiship 
feiitw»<ii!i iiiii &M liin son Mik®, It is r®F®mt®'5lly asserted tliarein 
tliat by poasoia of such relationship plaintiff reiMssod eonfidems© 
la Ms SOB, aad that Mlk® &bu»od saoh eonfidaasg® &Kd took advautaige 
of Ms father by liaviag the latter aonvey Ms property to defeiid&ats, 

^ hav« earefully searohad tl»# r«50ord ®M Imv®' failed to 
fisd tiie&r€lja a pertiel® of eviiieiMjo that ®v©n temda to show or from 
wMeh it Bight b« iuforred that any fraud or uMue iaflu©ii8« im.» 
prsctle^d by d^fead&iits to p^oemr® plaintiff to sonv#y his property 
to tiivm ©r that ttk® Mruk abused aay eoafidenoo r®pos©d lu Idm. by 
bia fEtker or took advaatago of him Is &.iif way, Heltlaei" is tbisre any 
evldenee la tbe record to support tb# findlag In thM deorae **tbat 
tbo d®f©iidants ^wor® guilty of fraudulent intent in th@ first instaneo 
at t&e tiiBO plaintiff conveyed his pros?erty t© tb@m and that fraud 
&nd mliQ<B aro tfm gist of tho aotion,^* 

©n tbe eontrary plaintiff hiasslf testified th&t bo volun- 
tarily traajsf^rrod Ms property to daf^ndants tsltb fuH knowledge 
of ndiat hB w&s doing* Els »if« had died soae years previously, 
lfelt®r Mruk, had j^t »©«5n bis fa,th*ir ton tiM@s in Udrt^en y«ers, 
lils only daugbter sM Mr Msb&nd bad but roc^sntly ovieted ium frm 


fes*.«^KEl; life «>4sJ:!? 



f- «m - '■ f- -^ 



v^ {tin. X»va#a W 

imii ^sufk 00ft titk a^ 

■ L.' - ::.:■ GVMi 0- 

:?«ij4a iiFiM, 0iaUi& ^«c^ to m^ •^T 

■^'^1^ e^'i^ »%S^ AOllMl tad 


Umtr hxm»g &t wMeh Um» hn &mef^d his son alKs'si Invitatioii 

to naice Ms ^imn with d^fsMj^ats. fue tMiig thmn vipp^mimBX in 
plaintiff's aiiia m&» to previi© f©r tii® snearlty ®f & hiffli» ftor 
I'.dMs^lf ilurling Ms llf@tim§ sM & Aemnt hmisl ^s^n h® di«d« 
It <i@e» not appear Umt IWm s«ll«it®d Ma fa-ti^i* to conv©/ his 
property to him iuhmS Mike t«s*tl.riei that Ite liiaisted th&t plaintiff 
rei^lii %hB titlft to tl» prapisrty In riijK«®lf ap«a s«if®ral ©eaasloias 
whtia ^Ijsiatlff sia®g€»t«d tmrnlag tii® prmp^tt-y &vmv t® i«if®Miiuat3o 
l«iw9v«p, &» mXr^My stat«4, @«.riy in, S«pt«asfe«r, 19i5f i«^il£e «a<l his 
fatii#r w^fflt t« »•« JO'Seph 'O.^iii^, a l&®y«r, wlic^a pl&iiatif f had knswa 
.f0.r laany y®&ys, &M h® ti»©lc '♦ail th« pap©T» to t^ i^roperty'* with 
hiau flaiatiff tsJtifiai t^it at ttot tiMft '^U^JSha. aske^a le® if I 
mnt t© sign, tiiat property to MUtae -^hi* I wii4 if mJm wHl <sl@tS»» 
i!Mi, g^v^ m» mm^lu, pXm& to st^y &u6 siXmp mm will mim eM taJB» 
Q&Tti of w tmmml I »oal4 «*« I3.e«ii& askoi Mlk® will y^c^ &gre« 
liaat tlai® Mftfi »i4ys &M lik* s&ys .y®»,« Pl&inUff mmk mmmU^ & 
§.®mi to tiat pi^p«-3Pty t© Mite inai Ms wif« aad !» eoritiimai t^iitr®- 
afttr to liw mt Ms Bmk M.k«*s hcas® f©r tlir«# y®aurs wifehismt any " 
e©a|>,I&iiat as to Ms treatment lintil July 21, l^jSj wii^a the slterea- 
tioa h«.r#tof©2*« msiitloa^d ^©iirr®4, 

ftots it tl®©rly &|tp®ars tta&t pfior to ^fmly 21, if^S, nmm ■ 
waa jao fraad mx tiJMS part ©f -itftB&iitg aM tMt .Mil^ B&4 ij@ithw 
absisM isi^ 0®mfl4#i5c« r^-iJosM in Ma i^y hi® f«^i®r 03P ti^oii aavantafo 
of hia iii siiy w«.y Im »o fiur «s th« property wm® eoisesraai. Xt Hsm 
el8«ly iipp#ar» that p^lor to Jmly 23, If 3it Ki^ ^s^^mli «iyrTi®4 oat 
with tli« mt»©®t goo^ f«iith his ©mtyaat wil^ hi« f»th®r to proviso 
for hi» la a.^sorclaiKs® with Ms meass. Plaintiff had ® Po«ai for aim- 
s«lf, had his ic^sliing d0£#, «&B fur»i <shed cIothi»g as :r)e$<d@(l i^3n4 a to 
Ms moals with Kili8 m& his family^ . So did odd Jobs «t tiaos la tlj® 
B©ighfeorho©'i aad inring ^rt of th# tiJW th&t h@ lif®4 wi^ iiii» 
h« «C'tiv®d «it old ®g« p-«RsioR« 

tho ro&I <iU0stioa is, this c&b® is whothor Mikis Mruk \xf 
ros^son of tho &It@ire4Atioj^ %hioh ooaarr^d oja th© oveiaiiis of Jaly 23, 


iU -iMiJ ii9iii $1' ti^i^ ViOBK^ «lf( MUNI it 

ocli ..., , v^T'-ro-j" ^cfj s'- lafl «» at %■■ . .tl atiJ 19 

, ^--JiedErfsi^a 

,....„...=■-.., .uj,,, Mi> la* i^^-wf^s^'.^v. fti- 


193S, teresaliad ht» contract to provide and ear® for his father. 

As alr®&4y stated plaintiff's oruly d&ughter and Mr husbaM 

tiir@w rilm oat of th®ir hoam, hXs soa W&ltar n.M iaia wif» could not 
stand hl» and »«jat him away fro® their Imm mlmrB h« .had Hved for 
a year after he fiimUr l^ft Mlk»*& hmm aitd )i» elairas to h&vn b«en 
so abused &M mistreated by defendants that It is no longer possible 
for hla to live wit^i them, Mle it is only imtar&l to pity and 
syapathlJie idth plaintiff b^a^ms® of his a,g© and his prtsent 
pr®dicaa®nt, it wuld b« highly tmjust and inequitable to deprive 
d.ef©.ndant» ©f thisir rights if th®y %®r« not at fault ffl#jr®ly bec&ms® 
of s»eh sya^athy* 

Jmst whoro do Walter Mi'iak and his wife fit ia this pietui*«? 
It appoi^od that Mike Mr^ hs«d mU 9&m dof suited rml estate laort- 
g&fo bonds for ^200, which Iw t@sUfi®d his f&thsr had turned 0T«r 
•to him. fhm first tia® that t^ son .*-alt@r touk, who h&d not there- 
tofore h%®& auffiel€mtly IntarsstM in his father to »«<§ USm fflor« 
than t«a times in thirteen f®sx%, a^paarod ©n th® s0#n© i» shortly 
prior t© «miy 23^ 1^33, wim h« aoeompfeaied hi® fatSisr to & laisyer's 
of fie® in semuwotion with Mik«»si »&!« of said bonds and also to 
tlM» state's attorney's off is© to mako m criMn&l coiaplalnt ugainsit 
Mik® Mrmk wi^ r^t^rmn^ thereto. Plaintiff was at -aaltar's twsm 
during th^ aft#rao«a of July 23, I93B* wh®r<i it is f&ir to assuise 
ills grt&vmm&B, r®«l or faacifulji against d®feM«,nts wer® diMuused 
and ®tr®»s«d. i€ isoved to naltor's hmm whtn im finally I®ft Mike's 
hoiia* and 'm l®ft defendants' Sioiss, aaeordlng to llko's wife, feeeaus« 
Isltftr «t0ld Mm to l«&v«,« 'i-alt®r's wif®, Ami&, t®aUfied that 
sho and h@r husb&nd advamod $30 to OQiB»enoe this suit. Waltor 
testified that pi&lntiff had no property "exestpt the claim ^ are 
suing for." Both miter &M .^nm, tastifiad th&t plaintiff was 
wonderful uM caused no Irouble in th#ir hmm but Ai-am later testi- 
fied that she could not st&nd hia &nd had to s®nd him to h^r »oth©r's 

hoiso, m^n Anna t«!3tifled b<^for« tk« master on th® hearing cm. Vm 
®ac<^mting sbo stated that plaintiff v&s indebted to Imv ai3^ t^;^ter 

'£01 twxll bad «^ e^s^aw Qifii^x:!: 'iJLeniS m>^ X^org oJtd ;ra»« bOM mM ba$iu 
Jiti-vc. '^^1 aiii 'tf^ miM,iifpii Xil^i^l*^ 4«>itv ^-^UUH »igK%9 


»%€m ffi; 

e ' 'j.0^ 

oJ u 

i>xij.; sin- 
i«4.X*i,/ .il*. 


.Ji;» TtaiSi 9AXA 

eOsi. til&r' 'u^Jj^^ 
t9&£ifirl>» kiia49Mi -tmi htu «xi£ 

4Ui ■t^lsi-. dioik **.'X{»1 soiint 
i4iw%« 80 kmai/bo ban iiTlifttecw 


for &. fmBr*» rooa &M board, ;?e &r® constrained to beH©v» ihaX 

th® trouble b©twen Mlk® &M hl» father on Jul/ 23, I938, wa» 

largely dtt® to tli«. Intermeddlirkg of i'^lter smd 4?jjim Kmk i^nd tiiat 
trsiey ijaspirsd and instig&tefi this litigation, tiot so mucii for 
plaintiff's benefit aa for tl:i«ir ©mi. 

JtuJt whygit is thc! s«ttiii|; as to the altered tion of July 23, 
1938? In the first pl&ce thB tsstiaony of both 4«jf«anjd£tnt» th&t 
plaintiff w&s "drunk" tii£t evsniag was not ^eiiied by Mm and in our 
opinion little eredsno® «an b® given to kla version of if4»t ooaurr«4» 
It is lOasolut^ly incredible ttmt *itbout tb© slightest reason or 
provocation Hik® Mruk would m&lisiwasly bM viaiously attack his 
father and Ui&t Mike's idf@ aM his ««v«n ana tfjirtssn y«ar old sons 
would 4oin in su@l% &n &tt&®ltf skt wit^ a chair lunt H^ aliilSr^n islth 
knives »®4 forks. 

We are ©onvinc®d fro®, tlie svid^aee timt ^a^ftnd&nts* version 
as t® wSmt ©e:aurre<i is 'true, AO-.:ording. to VmXr testiiioi^ they 
founuil |)laintiff sitting on the v®&T poreh when th^rtturnsd t© 
thsir hmm that evening from an autoaoail® rid® and Mik® stao^ted 
to talk %& Ms fattQr as tMy sntered, tii® ^itoli@n, Plaintiff 
followed thm in like & «wlia asan" aM ©ailed Mike » a wife vile and 
"dirty* laames, liik® endeevored t& restrain Ms f&tb«r witfeyout 
hurting liim smd finally 3Uoeeede4 in pushing Mm out on tli® h&&k 
poreh., where he tJsouglit Im would r@iiain until he **got solierei uf 
and avsrytiiing wouli fee forgotten,** Imt 1» ii4 not utay ©a tJat 
teck poreh.. 1« ru»Jie4 in apiin eursing and Mike ag&ia ^got hla 
on the b&sk poro-h" where, during th& seuffling, Im got Mik®»3 finger 
in his gsnt^ md bit it« EesOdiiing that it was impossible to re- 
etrain kis fai^bier Had get liia ^uiet^ and not wanting to strike or 
injure hSMg Hke e&UeS a neighbor bM tbey drove to %im poUee 
station, then tisey re turned with tia© poHcaaien, pl&intiff h&& 
gone. "Shim, im was located bo imd a eut on Ms forehe&t an^ also 
on Ills kend. 'Mike wia that he did net notiee tbese cuts an his 
father before lie went for the police, There is no evidence in the 

l,-';rl;3 ««j&li- 

i^l9? i£'-; 

]:g««&©^jl;- iir» $tsM *mut ^H&t 

,fl Sid titiA D&JMB 8ilf Bl 

Jbj^ 4dt '^ #2". 

mid i^* alsi. 

»«lXoq eit^ oi svo'i^' 

Uap ialii f^t Im# ttttf^iit sijf fflfl?!-* 

nJtii tii> n^ia^ «e«d$ »»litaa ^^6u 

»««U Mum MIM «J&A«l ^lii jm 


record as to th® nature and extent of the cut?^ azMl th«y may well 

have b«sn seratchss that ha received during the scuffling. Mika 
my& Ms father appeared at tiie polled station »ftei« their tn^vtrl&s 
ha4 b«on atteiided to at & l^idspital tmup by. Mikss signed a coaplalnt 
against his father so that he wemld be retained in casto4y for safe- 
kj&^pXng sM antil he b«o«dBe sob«r, Walter furnished bail for plain- 
tiff stm^tiMm aft^r midnight and took liim to hi 3 iame^ niuire he ro* 
sained until his trial on July 23, 1938» *^lt® was advised by the 
polic® s&fistrate not to att^M th@ trial &nd his fathar w»s dis- 

Flaintiff returned t© defeMent's hone on th^ ^veolng of 
July 26, 193^* «^^ eontintied to liv® ther®, aa he stated, for about 
a waeJt, but according to defendants for thr«e or four «eeks» 
lhleh@vep it w^s, after reauaining aifsay from defendants* hems over 
on® 3*itarday nigiit, h<& r^itumftd on ^^unday 2a®rniafe with a trmek, 
upon ^hioh h« loaded hia belongings and without girlag any reason 
for so doing, h® ssor^^'d to ^'alter's imm, this pro<j««*ding sfss insti- 
tuted within a f«w d«ys thore&fter* 

9«f ©ndants agr®«d t© car© and provid® for plaintiff in 
their hoas in acaor ianee with tiwiir ^bxi^, the ^videiic© is eo»- 
clusiv© that th«y performed thsir obligation axider thoir contract 
in good fai^. lh«n plain tiff left def^^ndants* hma^ on th« first 
oecasion he did so &a th® rssult ©f th# alt«rostlon In whieh h» 
was tim aggr^s^or and whlsh was due solely to hi is owk intoxicj^ted 
condition and sbusiv® eondi^t* wh«n h@ left th« seaond time h® did 
so voiuntiErily aM we think b«o&ms® he w&s improperly inflU9ue«d t» 
do so by bis s&& ^^'eLlt&r. 

Defendants Estate that they ar« perfectly willing to havs 
pl&lniiff return and imk% ^ils 1^3ffi@ ^th th@m« fhey &r« not obligated 
und^r th€ir oontr&ot to sa&lntain Mm imtsidc: t}:mir h^ae and if plain- 
tiff by his oonduet makcss It impossible for tlwm to perform their 

Gontraet, Vsm fault is his and not thslrs. wc repeat tliat «e hayo 
ths utaost syi^athy for plaintiff in iiis dealinlag yej^^rs, but aersly 

. ^JU Aflat 

rsvo asiort 'aJ-i: . 


r '>^i ^BAJLO^ 0* "lot 

btii «i: ®j3j 

at^q *!.£ isaaiis mmi il^m ^j^lk 

b®cstis« of that Mfmp&.%W &»tmi^&n.%& should ijot to« pemOlis®*! 

th®y hav® ptrforia^d tli«lr centr&sst £iad are »tlll willlag t® perfera 

1» ajT® not mssaintiful or tim r>Al® tiiat the tii'idJjGga aisi 

©©iseluslofMi «if tim m&M%m.t a» t® tiM* f®ct», «i»®a i&pproved by tia« 
eiiftf4e®ll©r, s-ri^mli B®t fe« «l.i8t«arfeed ualsii® tlmy ar® ja&iilfeastly 
agniast %lm wmight &f the evideae©, ^ «tr« of opinion, »is«v®r, 
that %1m findtngn &M eondimsioiiA &f %lm mtt@r &M tM ddejra® 
fsatar^d tiiereest ar® eiearly afaiast tk# isasiif^st weight ®f the 

!n:»»jr0 is «i6 gu«3tiori of .fraM, aomstrnjativ^ trost or 

fiiuaiary p®IatioiK»t4p in thi« cmm» h& we k»v« heretofore }X)ifit@d 
omt tli® oaiy cjueitioii im&%&»B,rT t© l»® 4«t®i^BiB®cl Mr«ia it wls«tl8ar 
d« f «s3sa«mt» br®&ck«iid tlneir a«>iitr&et «dtli plaintiff t© mniiitaiii &M 
typi>0rt MJ8« 5.ima# lil^ M.pmiE ai&,» a©t ^«sp®iisilil« for ttm &lt®rc&tlon 
OB *rmly 23, 1938, &.EMI M.S f&tli#s' ml®ii« ms, r4#iti^?p ©f tli® 4«fs»daiit« 
hm&^M& t^ ©aiitrmcit by F«&a©a ®f ajsytMag tMt .©asmrr^s^ «m timt 
©«e&si«m# Plaintiff r#t*ir®#i t© daf «8Maj£ife» » hmm $,f%w !5i$ trial 

05 July as, 19 3®, imd &iuc& after s. p«>ri©d of fmrn mm %m tto@«i 
w@©ks Im l©ft isaas ¥Oltuat;a.rily ®M ij^itlimxt mttm ®i» ajay «.pp&r«iit 
r©««©ja t© liim witli his s«m ■salt®'!', w« flui isesthiBi Is ilefeManvS* 
eoiidact or tr#«t»®at ©f pluiiatiff dariisg s^i p«ri©4 or im tin© elr- 
eyffii8ta««®s surrouMisg Ids d«fartaiP€s frmk ttmir htsmst that constituted 

6 biE^aeh ©f tlii® s^iifePaet by a®f*»£ui&iit», 

m do mt mnt it ijuiitersto^d frem m:fthlm »&id i» tiii& 
©piM«m that a«f@j*i»at« iur« la aisywise r«l®a*«4 frosa tk«ir ©Isliga tion 
to e&r« afed proviii« fm pislmtlff 4«rliig tm y-^siaiaiai ysays ®f his 
Hfe. D«f®» hmV0 h&4 niiatk®!- aMli aiiaa® this suit wa« »tart®d 
aM mim MinUt ©arns ©illy $36 & naek. Oa that ssaiary it is not r^aiaen- 
sfely p©»siM« fer a^S'fesasl&iits to »aiata3Jl pl&lutiff ©xa^pt la ^iassir 
h<w^ fend tlmt w«i» tbtip agr0«»»nt» I« de«a it to b® ths 4ttty of 
Mike MnaJt t© tis« sill proper ia^.&ii» to iMuee ids f&^isi:' to retura to 
Uw with lilm aad m d«i«ffi it taa b© his furttjer duty. If &M wliaa h« 
4»e» r«tay?3a, to s®e to it %lm% urn is tr«mt@4 witfe JciMms^ and coa- 






iiot*.-.-?'^: Oku ml ©-isdl 

. . .' i»(|qiis 

ilatfti ei :'■; 


ij^U ^^lU. toe 

l-l-i'iir ii I -XJ.-^ 

L^-iiiL O^ Ul^:i^ i^l^O'iCi J.1^ ^'Ci' OJ 3ii-- 

aideration by Qr^rr Q«^b«r of the fsuatlf, 

ie ara impelled to hold under all the f&cti anS elreua- 
stance* in evld'snce tfe&t defsidants did not violate tlioir con- 
tract isith plaintiff and t^i<*t hia eoaplatnt should liaro b«©n 
dismissed for want of ©qiaity. 

W« liav« eonsi<aeF«d all tht points urg ?d Imt la tdb* view 
V9 take of this 3«.se -ap® de^a flirtlxop dlsi^ussion ^mjoeoessiiyy. 

Plaintiff's inotioa Ii«!r«5tofepe aaade to dl,;imi3s ttdjs 
^pp«sl, ?j*hicli was x'ea-aFved to h^.-rlng, is at ti'ds tisse dejilod. 

?tor th® r®£»©ns 3tfet®«l h.firei,i\ t!^ d&&r^B of the Circuit 
court is r«Ters»d aM the aaoae i» remsMed witli directions to 
dismiss pl&intiff *» simplaiat for w&nt of isqulty* 

Friend^ F« J«, and Soaxilan^ J.^^ Qooawp^ 




chAek mmi 

a c&pora 


•i^^-- -y!t:-;.ia*5^-*?^'!»5^;i^T^ 

ThXn aotien was originally brought by plaintiff, M» 
S, Reichelt, as a proceeding in forcible detainer before a justice 
of the peace to secure the possession of the premises at 874- Green 
Bay road, Vsinnetka, Illinois, and judgment for possession was 
entered in favor of plaintiff. Defendant Ghapin Motor Sales, Inc., 
posted a bond and perfected an appeal to the Superior court of 
Cook County from such judgment. After perfecting its appeal 
defendant vacated the premises at 874- Green Bay road. Plaintiff 
filed an amended complaint in the Superior court in which the 
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, the surety on the 
appeal bond, was made an additional party defendant. Both defend- 
ants filed answers to the amended complaint and after a trial by the 
court without a jury on the issues raised by the amended complaint 
and the answers thereto, the court found against the defendants and 
assessed plaintiff's damages at $300. Judgment for that amount was 
entered and plaintiff appeals » 

Plaintiff's theory "is expressed in his amended complaint 
wherein he alleged in Count 1: that he became entitled to the posses- 
sion of the premises at 874 Green Bay road as of May 1, 1938, under 
a lease from the owner bearing date of February 21, I9385 that 
the defendant, Chapin Motor Sales, Inc., the tenant of said premises, 
under a lease expiring <.pril 30, I938, failed and refused to vacate 
the said premises when its leasee expiff^tfi and unlav/fully withheld 
possession from the plaintiffj that by reason of this withholding. 


r, :-(A^:;..'ilTV- 

nos^t) -^^8 JjG aoaxffisiq srfd- to flolsasseoq sd:}' »*ms»a od' 99B®q »rf;t lo 

t.oni ,a6lsc; lo^oM filqaflO iaBbael&a ttlXSBti&lo lo tovbI aJL Iw)ie:ffl9 

l€) 31000 ^oJ:i©q««i arlcf oJ^ Xseq-'-iis n.9 be^09ti»? btiB Hmod b i>ed-aoq 

Xss^qs six 3ax;to9lisq tlsJ-IA «iii9fiiabjj(, dou& moil xiasjoo aiooO 

llltHx^sI'i ,01301 \iA8. assiO I^^S d'a adalflisiq edi bsd-soev iosijflslef) 

•fid- iioixlw ttl di«oo lolisquB eil>3- nx Jalsil^iiXJC b^baoiaa oa belli 

Qd& HO T£^sui/a dfij ,XaBqsoO xiaB'iBUx) bae, \^ll&bt% aeinSb bGiXaV 

Qdi 'zd XjtviiiJ s 's®^1;« baei istik^lqmoo bBba&mB &di oJ ii'iswcTiJ^ belli a^txxB 

J"iiiiiIqroo f>9i3a9jiiij ^dS x<^ iwaJtsi aaufsajt 9il;J no \iu(, jj ji/ori^tlw iiiioo 

ba& ecrnsbflslsfe orid' (fafsiasis faHJol: iissoo -^di jOd"©i©xli eiswaiLs exit ba& 

Bern imsoaui J-ariJ- lo'i Samsj^bsiX, .OGC^ ;Js aGssjasib s * riid-filslq bozaseea 

,«lBdqqB lll^nlalq b£Ls bois^na 

^a.liilqm.00 bQba&sas alrl fii b«'aa»'iqx«» al" ^Ttoaiil e'llidnlBl^ 

asesoq ad;? o^ brjliJJai^ ©CDioscf ad d^jarii il Jm/oO nl b®39JLIs ed al9t9£tw 

%9baiJ ^Gc^I %I il-^« 'io as baoi X'^^' nss'iO ^S^ is eseJtfflsiq aidd' 1o flole 

d'.odi jQc^i tX'-i Xi/iXJ'xcf9''' lo 9^,sf) sxiXiiiScf i9m-o ©d;t moil saael fl 

goalffisiq blise lo Saaa^^ ^i ,,oici ^8eIiv; 'ioitM aiq&dO ^dflafoael&i) ©xii 

"I'iOj^v ct Doexfl©! foils fosljbilt ^8c?J , :-xq.'. jiUl'iiqxy sasal s tabasj 

fclarifi'jlv •^XXjjl.vijJjjxf fcfOB i)©*iqx& ^u,.a--.I a;fX iisxiw aselssriq hlsa 9di 

the plaintiff sustained the following specific items of damage: 

"1. $1,375 paid by the plaintiff to S, V. Skinner for 
rent of part of the premises at 562 Lincoln Avenue under a lease 
for eleven months from June 1, 1938« 

«2, $300 rent paid by plaintiff for the month of May, 
1938, at 5^2 Lincoln Avenue, 

"*** and that be is entitled to recover the damages above 
set forth from the defendant, Chapin Motor Sales, Inc» 

"The farther theory of plaintiff* s case, as expressed 
in Count 2 of his amended complaint, is that the defendant Chapin 
Motor Sales, Inc., by vacating the premises at 874 Green Bay Road 
during the pendency of its appeal from the Justice of the Peaee 
Court to the Superior Court of Cook County, thereby acquiesced In 
the finding and judgment entered before said Justice of the Peace, 
abandoned its appeal, and failed to prosecute its appeal with 
effect, thereby creating a liability against itself and the United 
States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, surety on the appeal bond 
given to perfect its appeal to the Superior Court, for the amount 
stated in said bond," 

The theory of the defendant Chapin Motor Sales, Inc., as 
stated in its brief is as follows* 

"The defendant had a lease on the promises at 874 Green 
Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois, which expired by its terms on April 
30, 1938, Prior to the expiration of said lease it entered into 
a written agreement for a new lease with the lessor's agents, 
commencing May 1, 19 38, Subsequent to this written agreement, 
the lessor's agent, ?dthout the knowledge of this defendant, 
entered into a lease with plaintiff for the same premises, which 
lease was to become operative on May 1, 1938. Upon defendant's 
fai3-ure to vacate on April 30, I938, plaintiff obtained judgment 
in a Justice of the Peace Court for possession from which defendant 
appealed. Defendant vacated the premises on May 30, I938, wliile 


svocfB s©gsfliBJb Qii-^ -x^vo; 

98B9I is 'i^fcfsi; BijacV'. alovnL . .- •■ 

.»f/fi*?vA dec.; K^i^-L 

^^ .'^ ,^, -,■'■. rl-ij-'j "^ff^' 

b&seo^tx . 

xilqarfS c^rr^-'f; 

Ime^X^': - 

9«>fi©t ©Jtfj '^:g -;c;1 

^^?: DT.Of»sll/i : 

<■"■•• - - 


i\^4fr::; r-,- 

U.^- ^...;4^.. 

•—■ «;>■ 

>;ni/rw«^ '^^•' •T^'^^ t w. 

/ ■vr,.-<rf^^ 

Xl^qA Co 

^Jn^^^Mgbwt banla^tcfo 'tlliJiiJLalq ^8c 

.Li'iqA no sc^soijv o^J diirllsl 

■wttia rtrt P«s> ^«l^lTrf aW-l" h«.+ t-.aR"ff .+rif.hrf?i'taCi ...E>sX£90Gr£ 

the appeal v/as pending* 

"IThe plaintiff filed a coiinter claim [an amended complaint] 
in the lower court seeking the recovery of damages for the withhold- 
ing of possession. Subsequently, the defendant made a motion to 
dismiss the appeal because possession had been accepted by the 
plaintiff. The court overruled the motion to dismiss the appeal 
and set this cause for trial on the counterclaim [amended complaint] 
and answers filed thereto » 

"The U, S, Fidelity & Guaranty Co. was made additional 
party to these proceedings as surety on the appeal bond, 

"Defendant contends that it surrendered the premises 
pursuant to a verbal agreement with the plaintiff to dismiss the 
appeal and release the defendant from liability upon its b©nd« 
Defendant asserts that plaintiff in dereliction of his duty to 
minimize the damages did not attempt to dispose of the alleged 
lease with. K, V, Skinner. 

"The defendant did not Intend to prosecute its appeal owing 
to the alleged verbal agreement with the plaintiff. Plaintiff's 
counterclaim [amended complaint]^ however, necessitated a continuance 
of the appeal to determine whether any damages Yfere due to the plain- 
tiff by virtue of the defendant's alleged conduct in withholding 

Both plaintiff, M, S. Reiehelt, and Chapln Motor Sales, 
Inc., (hereinafter for convenience sometimes referred to as the 
defendant) were automobile dealers in '^innetka. May 1, 1938^ 
plaintiff became entitled to the possession of the premises at 
874 Green Bay road, Winnetka, as the lessee, under a v^ritten lease 
with Berea College, the oviner of the property, which lease was 
executed February 21, 1938. Cliapin Ifotor Sales, Inc., was in 
possession of said premises under a lease which expired April 30* 
1938. Possession being withheld from plaintiff by defendant, the 
former instituted an action in forcible detainer against the latter 

-^bloddit^i 9£iS 'ml as^smBb to X'^&^ooei edi yalilees J-^xjoo t»fiol siH stl 
oi iioloOfii s 9bsm tsuhbaeyVib srW ^-^XdriaupeacftfB .froJtassaaoq "ic giii 

add- aeiina. iiKisXq. 9jrf;t jd;Jlw ;tjS©iH®©i§B £a<f*i?'V js o:J- ^tttsi/E^owj 

&fo3el.' - • •' • ' ^ o'- .'■•^.'^ '^i£> asssaaBij ©rid- (WlHlnlc 

, :nr££2f8 .V ,'f rid"±ir 6sa©X 

cmsxjnl^noo a ijvj,. ...[•,<:./'- .u ^-i: v o ... ^r;j'iiXsXqiBO0 betatxaffifl] mXaXoisdrixroo 


^8£^X tX AjsM .a:dd-s£mi:,V n± cisX.yeJb sXltfofitoix/s &f9^ (cfnsfanslsfc 

Bfivf 9tf.3el riolxiw ^-^d-rs^o^tq sSiJ 'io if«iwo darld- ^&^&l£oO BSisfi liJivv 

Hi SBvv ,,oiiX jasXaa io^TgE ji±q«tiv) ,8£4?X 4X5 ^ijsif'ias''"! fc©;^«:>»xe 

^0£ Xiiq>. b&ntqxe rfoXiiw ae.QOl b ns&aif esaJbasrtq felse lo noXsieoeao^ 

on May 2, I938, for possession of such premises before a Justice 
of the peace, Mb.7 13, 1938, judgment for possession ¥/as entered 
In favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. May 18, I938, 
Chapin Motor Sales, Inc., as principal, and the United States 
Fidelity and Guaranty Company, as surety, executed an appeal bond 
ia the amount of $1,500, Said bond was approved by the justice of 
the peace on May 18, 1938, and filed with the transcript of judg- 
ment in the Superior court of Cook county May 20, I938, thereby 
perfecting the appeal from the judgment entered by the justice of 
the peace. 

Prior to the coaaaenceiaent of the term of his lease at 
874- Green Bay road, plaintiff carried on his business at 562 Lincoln 
avenue, under a lease with the Aetna Life Insurance Company, which 
expired April 30, I938, ihen Chapin Motor Sales, Inc,, failed to 
vacate the premises at 8/4 Green Bay road, plaintiff remained at 
562 Lincoln avenue for the month of May, I938, for which month he 
paid $300 rent. 

The evidence disclosed that the entire premises at 5^2 
Lincoln avenue had been leased to one E, V, Skinner for a term 
comciencing June 1, 1938j that May 23, 1938, after plaintiff had 
learned that the defendant had perfected its appeal from the 
judgment of the justice of the peace, he subleased a part of said 
premises from Skinner for eleven months, from June 1, 1938^ to April 
30, 1939, at a rental of $125 a month; that on May 3I, 1938, the 
defendant vacated the premises at 874 Green Bay road and surrendered 
them to plaintiff I and that on or about May 31* 1938, plaintiff moved 
from 562 Lincoln avenue to 874 Green Bay road. 

Plaintiff presented evidence to show that by the sale and 
delivery of automobiles and equipment to Skinner and payment of cash 
to him or in his behalf, he paid Skinner $1,375 for the eleven months 
rent due under the terms of his sublease at the rate of $125 a month. 
Plaintiff contends that "where possession of leased premises 

b&io*ne as*- Holsassaoq toJ .ta^msftrili ^S^^I ^CX Xs5^ «©0B9q 9ri:t lo 

t8£?X ,81 x^ .cfas&ttslci srijf ^ealaSB &<is ttlctitislq to lovs'l xil 

ead^:"- - taU «il* bflfi tl^-sql-oixliq e« ,,oaX ,a©Xi»S wioU. xiiqsfiO 

Esnocf Xs-^n -^" JO^^wo^J^:© (Tjcr^iJ^a as ,XK&q«K)D ^M&iiiSsD ban ■^t^lXsfei"? 

•0 ^oi^ajjf, s^i x^ b^voiqqB 8svr 5iiocf feifiS .OO^ti^ t© iixxjoxas «d:^ al 

-;^6rjt 'Jt© J-qiisaajB-ii* ©rfd" liJiw bolll fms t8£eX ,£i XtM no •os«q aeW 

v^ddiei^JJ tS^C'- t<^ Xs^' "?:tfl»oo liooO 'io ivLBos loiieqjrB eiU xiJ: J-a«B 

lo eolc- J'^ ~' ' "' ' ---"-^^-'-"^ •T«?«BSbXft ^^-^ soil Xfisqqs »At ^il^oslieq 

o:t- fif-Xlrsl ^.or.I ,2 9lc'^- 'lo^oM iiJtqsxiO ijadA' .8£fX ,0£ XiiqA fesiiqxs 

,insTt 00£$ l^iBq 

/.sti I'ii^fHJtisXq i©il V x^^' ^fii^^ l3£^X ,X smfL aaiaasjiHaoo 

fciiiB lo ;fi^q fi bSBaoldva &d ^sosoq sixl;}- lo solcfsiit adc^ to ^noas^t 

Xliqii oi t3£PX ,X sotfl^ me^l: ^sxJiaoBi asvoX© 'lol i9flflXai3 aw-sl «osl«i97q 

^i t3£^X ^X£ lEfiH ao i&di jxi^fxxofis a ^SX4i lo X.e^i«^ si* i^£?X ,0£ 

bsvcd llitai;:?Xq ^S^^X ^X£ x^ ^ucds io no d'Biid' taa jllx^aisXq o^ ««d;f 

;X/iC <&i^ x^ ^AiU wQii'd o;J ^oasbXvs i>©iJ^aae©iq lll^iiisX^ 

axWccffi ixcv»i3 eitf 'sol 5;i^ttXJ& 'xofijEtcUfe laljeq 9x1 ^11&d&4 elri ni io mlfi o:t 
.dJjBUiia d <i£X<it Ite od^^Ai 94i* ^» ©«^©X«fii8 airi lo sarcs^ 9ii^ isiaa 9c£> ^«»i 
HfcKtmftic i^aiicl lo fir: :ci O^adlir'* :?^ .•irsoa 'tllJ-Jil&i^ 


is unlawfully withheld, damages ar^. recoverable against the 
party unlawfully withholding the same, which may fairly and 
reasonably be considered as the natural and proximate result 
thereof J and which damages, special or otherwise, the party in 
default in the light of the circumstances should reasonably have 
known would result to the party entitled to possession from his 
acts in withholding the premises," 

As heretofore shown, the judgment of the trial court 
awarded plaintiff $300 damages, which amount he was compelled 
to pay as rent for the Lincoln avenue premises for the month of 
2fe7# 1938, because the defendant ?d.thheld possession of the Green 
Bay road premises from him for said month. But plaintiff urges 
that he should have been allowed damages in the additional amotint 
of $1,375> which be claims he was required to pay as rent for a 
portion of the Lincoln avenue premises for the eleven months from 
June 1, 1938* to April 30, 1939, raider his sublease from Skinner* 
He insists that he is entitled to the full amount of $1,375$ notwithf 
standing that he admits that he received $^0 rent for the Lincoln 
avenue premises for the month of October, 19 38, from soiae political 
organization and that he occupied said premises himself during the 
months of January, February, March and April, 1939« 1^ plaintiff's 
zeal to prove that he paid the eleven months rent due under the 
sublease, either by the payment of cash or the delivery of auto- 
mobiles and equipment to Skinner, he enumerates items on pages 8 
and 9 of his brief which indicate that he paid Skinner in the 
aggregate not $1,375 l>ut $l,5iOO> or in other words that he overpaid 
him $125 in rent* 

Several witnesses testified in defendant's behalf that 
plaintiff continued to use the show room at 5^2 Lincoln avenue 
during the entire period of his sublease for the display «f his 
automobiles and that he did not at any time place a "For Rent" 

sign in said show room* 

James L, Chapin, president of Chapin Motor Sales, Inc», 

flseiij Qdt lo noissseaoQ &Iedri;:Mw ^TiisMslsfe srW aai/BOScf ,8£^X »xjbM 

essniJ llJtJ-fllBXq d-i/S ♦i.Wnoia bijsa nol etJtrf coil aeaijBsnq fesoi x*9 

vtxmoEiB XsaoXuib£>/; r^rlj nx asssissfe bsmollB iisscf sv-dri bXxroriE 9il iadi 

B Vi&l Sgi&i as TCjesq o;t bs'ilwpsi sjbw oiit ainisXo @xl iloldw ^^'^£4-^^ ^® 

moil add-noflf neveXs eiLt toI s^isimeiq qxxhsvs aXooflXJ sfi;J lo tioJtSioq 

,'tBmiht'E. ©oil 93.BeXdi<- , uS »8t?X ^X «cu:/X 

rf^^lwd'on tC^£%X$ lo jmjofc itXJld'jae el ©d ;tfi(i;J aisiani 9ii 

iiXooxilJ sflJ ^.9ivl»{&0i er .J-liEb£ ©ri i&sii ^^albaaia 

Xsolilloq aeo , . focfocfoo lo rlofaom sil:^ 10I 2©2i«te'iq ©jjHsve 

ftjd;)- 8i3l'i£/£s IXseffiiri asslezsiq fclsa bdlquooo a/i isdi bn& aoti sstas^io 

s'llWfileL , ^ ; ba& doiaM. ^^tairxcfft'? ^x'^^BXinisi:. lo erI;tnofi5 

QriiJ- isfeni; sirb jnei a/{:?rtois! nevaXo sd:^ blsq 9d SimU ©vonq od" Xj»9s 

-aJiJS 1© TcasvlXef) !9£JJ :':> 'to .J^iiocT;, ^sassXtfus 

8 eegjaq Oo sffi0C)"l s-j^disisKJUiis erl , 19x1111:^8 06' d-nsffiqlxfp» fcO£ eaXlcfoai 

©dd- Kf TSfml?!-; 3d-sol5ax ifolxlvv . ztd lo ^ baa 

t:ja€^i al ^SX$ ttlri 

eisHeva aXoofllJ Sd<« Sb jaoo ricf onu o^ tumt^tuoo l'JI,tal«Xq 

Bid "Ui XMiqzlib &di tol .: ^slc',; ___^ .__.,... ..„ ^al'xsjb 

testified that ?^en the defendant vacated and surrendered the 
Green Bay road premises on or about May 30» 1938, It did 9« 
pursuant to an oral agreement with plaintiff that in consideration 
of defendant's dismissal of his appeal from the Justice of the peac« 
to the Superior court, plaintiff would release defendant from lia- 
bility on the appeal bond. Orian J. Galitz, testifying as a wit- 
ness in defendant's behalf, corroborated Ghapin in respect to said 
oral agreement. 

Plaintiff denied that he entered into any such agreement 
with defendant and h® also denied that he kept automobiles on 
display in the show room at 5^2 Lincoln avenue during the months 
from June to December, 1938. Plaintiff and Skinner testified that 
a "For Rent" sign was displayed in said show room during the entire 
term of the sublease. 

It is undisputed that plaintiff gave no notice to defend- 
ant of his sublease of the Lincoln avenue premises until he filed 
his amended complaint in the Superior court June 12, 1939# which 
was after the expiration of said sublease* 

We think both parties have overstressed in their briefs 
the proposition as to which of them had the burden of proof oB 
the question of mitigation of damages in regard to the premises 
which plaintiff subleased and which he claims he did not occupy 
after June 1, 19 38. In our opinion that question may be entirely 
disregarded in view of the issue of fact as to plaintiff's continued 
occupancy of the Lincoln avenue premises during the entire term ®f 
such sublease. If plaintiff occupied such premises himself through- 
out said term defendant could not be held liable to pay the rent 
for same, l.'hlle there was a conflict in the evidence on this issue, 
there was ample evidence presented to justify a finding by the trial 
court that plaintiff did so continue to occupy the Lincoln avenue 
premises. This is also true of the issue of fact as to whether the 
parties agreed that plaintiff would release the defendant from lia- 

ed:f be'iehaeiis.' 

&J:.Ha oo stoeaaft'i «1 iilca/iO bactsioc 

i/^i bsjirtsb mdnislit 

^ o^ '^nuL ffloil 

.:.;.. ...Idufi edit lo En 9* 

^ 'r-'.-- "t-a lo laolisiiqxs f^r'* •^-■•'^'" - ■■» 

- -foiriw o^ as Qolileoqoiq erid' 

-•:.^i;c .i.j li^&ffEJtxi esBliTiQ-iq dmJB fcelqjjooo mj-fiislq II .sesaldxie rfo^s 

^taei arid- XBq o .-- - naJ&ne'ieJb «i©^ bl^e isto 

^908ei: aJbc{%t no eo£z^>i:/iv';.H ixw ft! JoiX'iao; i- • ' .einas lol 

Si^iii^v, iiloaaxJ arid xqjaoso o^ uanlcfnoo oe bib llliatulq S^di ;j"uroo 


bility on the bond furnished by it on the appeal from the justice 

of the peace in consideration of the dismissal of said appeal by 


Where, as here, "the case is tried before the court vdthout 
a jury, and the court has had an opportunity to hear the witnesses 
and to observe their demeanor while testifying, it is not within the 
province of the court of revier to substitute its findings of fact 
for those of the trial court unless the findings of the trial court 
are manifestly against the weight of the evidence," Alton Banking 
& Trust Co. V y Alton People & Loan Ass'n^ 289 Ill# App, I77, As 
already stated there is ample evidence in the record to support the 
finding and Judgment of the trial court and "the Law has comiaitted 
to the trial Jjudge, where a cause is tried by the court without a 
Jury, the deternination of the credibility of the witnesses and of 
the weight to be accorded to their testimony, and where the evidence 
is merely conflicting this court will not substitute its judgment 
for that of the trial court." People v. OverbeVf 362 111* 488, 

No sound reason having been advanced as to why the judg- 
ment of the Superior court should be disturbed, saaie is affirmed, 


Friend, P, J», and Scanlan, J,, concur « 


aii ,v\x ., .Ill g8s ^is;»8gA a^ :g> ^imp'i m^^^ ^^l *^^ ^gg^r jfr 

6 ^J'jtrojfi;!.^ iitjoo srl." -:.iji>o 3 ^larf's ^i^u^vt l»i.%i 9itii oi 

&tJ£i^blvB Bdi ^'ipdm bias ^xnoml't &•-:?• 'tisxli oj fc^jbiooC'S ®«f 0S ;tjdalew sxl:^ 

~i_.-. i, r.:^.r)ris ■.';;. rr--^e)cf gXXlV.Sil ja.02S91 5iXtrOE Ol 



buslne^ as tl^b^^Q S ^" ' 



ON, a corporation^ 

Appellee . 

This action was brought by plaintiff, Samuel P. Miller, 
doing business as All-Vac Steam Control System, to recover from 
defendant, 110 South Dearborn Street Corporation, the contract 
price for the alleged use by said defendant of the All-Vac Steam 
Control System, a patented process of which plaintiff was the 
inventor and owner. The case was tried by the court without a 
jury and judgment was entered against plaintiff. This appeal 

Plaintiff's statement of claim alleged that he entered 

into a ¥o?itten contract with defendant, which was dated February 

1# i936j that under and by virtue of the terms of said contract 

he '^furnished design, specification and supervision of construction 

for the installation of an All-Vac Steam Control System on the steam 

lines in operation by defendant in its building located at 110 

South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois|" that said contract 

provided in part as follows? 

"If said guarantee has not been substantially fulfilled 
and the party of the second part shall on or before May 1st, 193o* 
permanently remove said system from said steam lines and building, 
notifying said party of the first part in writing that the party 
of the second part so intends, then at its option it shall be 
relieved from any and all obligation to pay any sum or sums of 
money mentioned in this contract, and any and all agreements 
based upon this contract shall thereupon become null and void and 
of no further effect. The party of the second part further agrees 
that should it come to the conclusion that the guaranteed saving 
or an amount in excess of the guaranteed savings of Ten (10%) per 
cent has not been made, it will provide the party of the first 
part with complete and accurate data on the steam used during the 
past year or that portion of the year in which the All-Vac Steam 
Control System has been in operation in said building." 

^ Wilt^' 

^<-vi.^}i-\.^ mm. X' 

■s • '^ 

Wli - .^_ . yd 


■^jisaftf©'*! bsifift 3SVV lioMw ,cfa3l>ii9lQi) fiiirv/ io&tiaoo a^SilTH a oiat 

la&ia 9£W HO lasc^a^c lo-KtHoO hs9*£ osV-IIA fis lo nolo cIlB^t CjOI sdJ "lo? 

Oil ;^B fc«;tBooX ^niijlijad acJ-Jt nJt .-?xii3^9l9b y<^ noicfaaeqo nl e^xtiX 

;foani^noo fiiije :isdi ";b1oxi1III ^ossoJtxlO ^J'se^^tc. inodiBoQ divo'd 

;3¥oXIol 8jb d'ljsq nl bel» Jtvoiq 

ijc>ixr..isj'i xll.:.:.:)iu2:.QiJB nsscf ^oa &sn.i b- ■:; i>l»« ll" 

^ofC>l ^,>al t^jsH e'lolod io no iI;:U'i8 iiaq L' '^ lo x^^f^^ *ri^ fctts 

^j;. ■ ' baji asall asa^fa Mue ffioil ni»^a'^a j.;X.if.. "' • -oq 

otf Iliaxi® ^1 jtioli'qo ad^i S& nejlj ^ ■, oe j'l a c-xicl lo 

1© Bmrm iro tf-f'r) v,?^? x«q o^ aoUii'g.i bna \^:^ ijev&llsi 

tas t- ■■■s<S iioqiJ'JiQiii^ Ii.Ajii3 j-oxiictaoo aiii^ noqx; £>9«ficr 

«««'«8iS isiiiriju'i j'leq i>aoo©2 ©dd^ lo x^icq ©iff .d'oa'ila isxi^^ii/T: on lo 

3ttiViv3 b^'Biaaii^m^ ^si-J iadS notzaloaoo Mi at ©moo ;tj: bltroris ^iisild 

'I9Q (-^01) fiESjL "io agnivija hij^iaai&v^ &£ij lo eesoxe al iswoms aa no 

:ta'iX'i adcT lo ^;t--5Bq add" foXvoiq Iliw Jl ^eibsis nssrf ^ofl 3«fl ;Jn©o 

msBi'o osV-ilA eiU iioiilw nl "lsstj; 3fl:^ l© aoloiGq cta/iJ io ibsx ^a^q 


The statement of claim further alleged that "the 
defendant has not removed said system from the steam lines nor 
has the defendant notified the plaintiff in writing of its inten- 
tion so to do, but on the contrary the said All-Vac System was 
connected to the steam lines of said building during the entire 
term of said contract} " that "in accordance with said agreement, 
the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff $200 May 1, I936, 
$200 May 1, I937, $200 May 1, 1938, and $200 Hay 1, I939, making 
a total of $800j" and that "no part of said total has been paid 
and although often requested to pay the same, the defendant has 
refused and neglected so to do." The complaint concluded with a 
prayer for Judgment against defendant for $800 with interest 

Defendant *s verified statement of defense denied that 
plaintiff performed his obligations as provided in the contract 
and that plaintiff's system was connected with the pipes and steam 
lines in defendant's building during the entire term of the con- 
tract. It then averred that defendant had permanently disconnected 
plaintiff's system from its steam lines and discontinued the use 
thereof and that it had given plaintiff written notification to 
that effect prior to May 1, 1936; that plaintiff looew or should 
have known that defendant's building "was heated by means of pipes 
or steam lines without the use of any mechanically sufficient vacuum 
and without the employaent of any equipment which was capable of 
mechanical operation in conjunction with saifl All-?acuum Steaa 
Control System or which could result in any substantial ©r profit- 
able saving to this defendant by reason of its usej" and that 
defendant did not at any time accept but, on the contrary, rejected 
plaintiff's system because no substantial saving was effected by 
its use. 

The contract which was attached to and made a part of 
plaintiff's statement of claim azid which was received in evidence 

%9B. saalX flL39^e Bdi moil jasdsxe bl-js Dsvoas®"! Joa aaxi ;taaiax©lst 

-fi-^inl 2*1 lo snld-iiw ni ^tl:tr:l.,r>Iq add" asHiioa «^««l»ii9l©b ed* tail 

_., jis;J-e^a oaV-IIA i>tj&; .us'rffio© 9di no ijud ^oi) o;J oa aoJi* 

Joisq nostf eeri Iscfod feiss to tt&tf «!« 4itfi;t baa >'|008$ to Is;taf a 
SBd j^ni4fefi9*i»i!) QxiJ ^sisHs3 adit Xb<1 ©J" £»@j'S9ifp®i c»*lo iisifoii^lB fens 

(Jaeiscfn- •■'^' •''-' '':^''- ^" —-•'[, :^zstia-^a iaBmSibvl 'xol la^siq 


d-oand-fcoo 9f£t nl JbsfcJtvo'iq as eiioJtiasiXdo eiri bsn^Mtlnsq llJ:;^nlj8l..i 
mBQia baa aaqlq siid ' " -^iuBosioo sbw lasitB-^a a*'i'ilJ'fl±«Iq ^jad^ fttfs 

oaw QricJ- bajaslSxiooali) bus aeiiil i2S9:f8 sd'l moit ai»*«xfi a'lti^claXq 
oS noi#BO±lljon aeif^lT^'^ Ti±.tiij:3lq 11&VI3 baxi cJ-l ;f.s£i;t foaa to^ifldt 
blirorfa 10 wen>i "illd-nlBlq isms j^£^I ,1 Y«M ©d" tetiq tt>&Ti.Q i6d:t 

to alcfsq^o asw rlolilw ^netnqjtupa -^a t© ctnesnjoiqua 9*1* *iyori*.tw baa 

1BS9*8 BOfifOisV-IIA flflaa liJ-lw nol^omjlaoo al aoli&i&qo Isolnsdoaa 

-:Mtoiq "xo Xsi*its*Bdjj?i -^ccls ni: J-lJirse'i blVQo ri»Jbrfw 10 iB©*eX'3 XoxtxroO 

*sn* f)nfi "jaaii 3*1 lo aoassi x<^ J-ita&aatsb aid* o* aalvsa sitfs 

bojfoot©^ ^Tf^aidnoo 9flJ' ao ^ivd *q9»0B awl* vt^ *^ *Qa ^Xl> *iij6faa©t#|j 

■^ betostto asw jjiiIvjoE Xj3Jt*ojs*eefifa on seiJsodtf woJ-axa e»ttl*xslalq 

.sex; a*l 
to i'laq js obsm M£ 0* barissiiB saw sicMw *oa^£ios) adT 


is as follows t 

"(Letterhead of) 


Builders Building 

Chicago, Illinois 

110 So. Dearborn St, Corp., Date February 1, 19 36 

110 South Dearborn St., 

Chicago, Illinois Number 11, 

License Agreement 

"aaiereas Samuel P, Miller has invented certain new 
and useful improvements in Self -regulated Heat Transfer Systems 
for which he filed an application for Letters Patent of the 
United otates, identified as his attorney's Docket No, 17,501* 
and an application for Letters Patent of the United States on 
Heat Transfer lystems, his attorney's Docket No, 17,667, and is 
the sole oisner of same and all rights thereunder, and is now 
licensing the installation of said systems and doing business 
under the name of All-Vac Steam Control System, hereafter 
referred to as the party of the first part, and 110 So, Dearborn 
Street Corporation, the licensee, shall be hereafter referred to 
as the party of the second part. The above attorney's Docket 
Ho, 17,501 refers to GoBsaissioner of U, S, Patents Application 
Serial No. 699,557. 

"The party of the first part hereby agrees to furnish, 
design, specification, and supervision of constractlon for the 
installation of the said All-Vac Steam Control System on the 
steaia lines heretofore supplied with steam tiirough one certain 
Five (5) Inch High Pressure Reducing Valve, now in operation at 
the above mentioned building at the address given. The par t y of 
the first part guarantees tliat the said s team control system when 
installed will effect a substan tial and profitable s fcvin^ in the 
cost of The oper ati on of sai d steam, lines o ver the system here to- 
fore used ; and this agreement shall include a license for" the use 
of the inventions of said Samuel P. Miller when installed with 
his approval and direction, 

" It is further agreed that the saving in j^he operation 
of the said All -V ftC otea^ Gont ro]^ Systj-em shall be computed on the , 
basis of the fuel reauirement per degree day in comparison with 
the fuel requirement per degree day of the heating season of 

''I£-.§aMjSBMa5lee, ha^not . been^^^ t^ntjally fulfilled 
and the party of t he secon d part shall on or before May 1st. 19\bf 
permane ntly r emove said system from said ste am lines and building^ 

lotif yjjag_.sald_ p^yl ^y .of__y:^e fjxst^ ,pfiy,1? ,ip„,iyi,t;ing %)m% thp pfiyty 

of the second part so Intends^ then at its option it shall be 
relieved from any and all obligation to pay any sum or sums of 
money mention ed in t h is contract, and any and all agreements based 
upon this c ontract shall ther eupon become nul l and void and of po„ , 
further effect. The" party of " the second part further agrees that, 
should it come to the conclusion that the guaranteed saving or an 
amount in excess of the guaranteed saving of en (lOi) Per Cent, 
has not been made, it will provide the party of the first part with 
complete and accurate dat a on the st eam used du ring the pasi 

sioolXil ^ogjioMO 

^£^1 ,1 ^t&sn^Q'^ &i^ ^.qicO ,?e ftTO<fr:?;K: .08 Oil 
,0.1 lacfjaiffe i 

w«c[ 111:5 V 'ISC' f:ejr:G-v,ii .2 ■ j:,' iclli!?)' .^, ISL'is?je=' ?.f»^i»fap" 

a© 3JJ.'^■■.^ / 'lo Ji. 


aiodis^C. ,ocj jIX Jjaa ^ii^q Ja-ii't .■;:l;f lo Y^isq 


€d;f no ; 


.i!i.iu©*ijt& Mi5 X«voiqqs eiri 

• - iiv^. lo 

- ■ ) 

Jl9. Mi. 

or that portion of the year In v/hich the All-Vae Steam Control 

System has been in operation in said building^ 

"The party of the first part herein assumes all liability 
for any patent Infringement which may arise from the use of the 
All-Vac Steam Control System as specified by the party of the first 
part, and agrees to defend at its own expense any infringement suits 
of any kind. First party further agrees to indemnify and save harm- 
less the second party from any loss, cost, damage or expense arising 
out of any litigation involving infringement, the party of the first 
part having exclusive control over all patent litigation respecting 
said Device, including the right to choose counsel and conduct 

•♦Part II 

"The party of the first part hereby states for your guid- 
ance for comparison that the following results in the use of the 
said All-Vac Steam Control System when properly installed and 
operated, should be expected: 

"(1) A co-ordination throughout the entire radiation 
system by means of a small connecting static line to establish a 
cycle therein, whereby the law of gravity will operate to the 
elimination of mechanical force to exert a major or suT>er control 
over the reducing valve commensurate with the condensation iii the 
entire heating system, 

"(2) The entire radiation system will be tied in a 
multiple series vdiereby the reducing valve will respond instantly 
to any and all local conditions in the entire steam lines or system, 
supplying steam or vapor as required at quite the same pressure 
and temperature and at a low velocity while eliminating expansion 
of same throughout the steam lines, 

"(S) i'hat there should be no material alterations or 
shut-downs required in the installation of the All- Vac Steam 
Control System, 

''(4-) That there should be a profitab le saving in the 
cost of steam pyer t he cost heretofore requi r ed, of at least 
fenH o^Per Gent^ 

** It is farther agreed %bf&% if tlie sav ing guaranteed in 
this agreement ofTen (105<&) Per 8ent. is substantiated^ t hen the 
p arty of the second part agrees to make paym ents to the party of 
the first part in the following amounts on the dates named when the 
respective amounts shall become due and payable: 

"Two Hundred Dollars ($200) on May 1st, 1936, 
Two Hundred Dollars ($200) on May 1st, 1937, 
Two Hundred Dollars ($200) on May 1st, 19 38, 
Two Hundred Dollars ($200) on May 1st. 1939, 
Total payments to be Bight Hundred ($oOO) Dollars. 

"All payments to be made to All-Vac Steam Ceatrol System, 
Chicago, Illinois, 

••A discount of Six (6%) Per Cent, on the balance due after 
May 1st, 193t>, will be allowed if paid in full on or before that 

**Thls agreement shall not be modified or changed except 
in writing and shall include the whole and entire agreement betweea 

X91>^-PP0 iftft^;^ 


gjELtJooqesa r. 


;ac-9a sdj eeeX 

ill arid lo V 

tr\'> f-if-.m 

a(9;j8X*i sflIJG»ri ©nWns 

^ffieiJfexn TO a:; ..)e s^ic^n"^ ^di £lL anoio'iitfioo lijool .i o:f 

U.W ;. r. .>.. 6d i5jj;»xfa a^siwfjt ;}'ed.T (£)* 

■:-.■■> t v.. OX ) flgT 




iil liji^ li t*©wt>XX- -■■;.vX ,^aX 


i/T K4 ^«rtJr m ^ 


the parties ^ereto and is not valid until approved by the owner 
of the inventions, oamuel ?» I4iller» 

"It is further mutually agreed that if the party of the 
second part defaults in any payment herein provided for or decides 
against accepting said systora, then this contract shall become null 
and void and the further use of the system shall constitute infringe- 
ment entitling the party of the first part to a preliminary and 
permanent injunction against its i'urther use, 

"Signed by the party of the second part at the City of 
Chicago, 111., this 10 day of Pebr. A, D. 19 36, and by the party 
of the first part at the City of CMcago, Illinois, this 11 day 
of Feb., A. D, 1936. (Italics ours.) 

"Respectfully submitted 

By C. L, Dicker son. 
General Manager 

"Approved! Feb, 11, I936. 

••All-Vac Steam Control System 
By Samuel P. Miller, 

Party of the First Part f 
Owner and Inventor. „ 

"110 South Dearborn Street Corp. 
By D, M. Baum, agent. 

Party of the Second Part." 

Plaintiff aras the o^ATier of a Uidted States patent covering 
a heat transfer process called the All-¥ac Steam Control System, 
which he claimed would, if installed in connection with the heating 
system in defendant's building, cause a reduction in its heat co»- 
sumption with a resultant saving ©f at least 10% in the c©st of 
heating said building. Miller had an arrangement with on© C. L» 
Dickerson whereby the latter was licensed to sell the use of said 
system and under said arrangement plaintiff was to receive ^0% af 
the contract price on every ••license agreement" negotiated by 
Dickerson. With plaintiff's consent and approval Dickerson had cards 
printed, Miich read: '♦Franklin 2096 ALL-VAC STEAM CONIROL SYSTEM 
Not Inc. Builders Building Chicago, C, L. Dickerson, General 

Dickerson presented one of such cards to the managing agent 
of defendant's building and thereafter negotiated the written contract 
with defendant, heretofore set forth. The contract was drafted on 
plaintiff's printed form by his attorney and Miller, who was the 

-©gxii-i'liii. -; 
^s \ 


,q'ioO J9saj«- ~ Oil" 

,„....,.,. .... ^.. .. — . ,.„; „.....,.;, aeeoo^q islaa^^^f JserC s 

-iico ^ .. ... -v. .. .,. -......-. . ^i^albitud &*iniiim&1^k at Si&i&x^ 

fejbbffi "io ©ajy 9fi' ■ '■: ■■' ' esafls^ll 3?.' •'■'•■ - '' vcfe-i^iiw noeieiolQ 

;ta©8JB :mX^HiifJu onj o;j^ efcttao riojja to ©no Jb9J"ii©a©ici noaisjiolG 
no bBilavib bsw ^J'oei^noo oxIT •ric^'xol :t9e s'loloiQiad ^djEtefiiaeleiD xU-lw 

last of the parties to execute same, did so on Febniary 11, 1936. 
It required about a week or ten days to install plaintiff's system 
In defendant's building. Defendant purchased the material necessary 
for its installation, consisting of about 200 feet of half incli 
pipe and two special thermostatic valves, and a plumber and an 
electrician in its employ installed the system under the directioa 
and supervision of Miller and Dicker son. Plaintiff's system was 
given every opportunity to function properly. Dicker son even 
brought in an additional vacuum pump and had same attached to the 
steam lines, but still the system did not and could not be made te 
work Satisfactorily, Defendant's plumber and electrician and 
Dickerson all testified that the system liad been operatsd inter- 
mittently in conjunction with defendant's steam lines from the time 
of its installation in February, 192^, until the latter part of 
April, I936J and that, notwithstanding that plaintiff, as well 
as themselves, used every effort to make it work satisfactorily, 
their efforts were unavailing and that the system was disconnected 
froffl said steam lines during the last week of ..pril, 1936, and was 
not thereafter used in connection with same* 

It will be noted that under tliat portion of the contract 
set forth in plaintiff's statement of claim, defendant was the 
sole judge from the date of the installation of the system until 
May 1, 1936, as to whether it worked satisfactorily end effected 
the guaranteed saving and tiiat in order to cancel the contract 
and relieve itself from liability for payment of the contract 
price, all that defendant was required to do was to remove the 
system from its steam lines and notify plaintiff in writing of 
such removal. One Baum, who was the managing agent of defendant's 
building and executed the contract in its behalf, having left de- 
fendant 's employ and his whereabouts being unknown, was not avail- 
able as a witness. However, Dickerson testified that a letter 1& 
loi^hand from Baum addressed to the i 11-Vac a team Control System 
was received by him In his office in the Builders Building shortly 

iisnl IXaJl lo :f-'' ..&dn lo :,..„.._,..._. ^:„.^-. „^^ ... ^^ix ^wi lol 

saw fsei-d^s. -.. ....^.,,. _ .no3i&:^oiG ib«;5 i©IX±M lo uol8J:T'i»qiia bcA 

IISV0 aoETSjioia .■^Iisqonq aoJt.tiDini;'! od- "^:fini*c^*j:oqqo ^leve nsvlj 

oi Q.b&3i Qcf ioci ILsjoo -ii.-.. -OH bit Bie^zx^ ^^ IlJtJa iirif ^seiii:! nutsJs 
eiolJ- silj- fiio'xl ssiill cuss^Ja £ • inabrtslsif iijx;; uold-oiUft««>o ai xJ^i5«^^i« 

ssm &fiA ^&£?i ^liiSqA 1o 3f©^- ' 6ii.-t sxiJt-ufi ' • i^ssja fei^e laoil 

»©mv. ;o±.to0ro~^' . asij I3;i-la9a9iid' J' on 

«W' 8BW d-HzsMslsfc ,jtiit_: y£i£vCjB;J'e 3»"ill:fxilBXq iiJ: ilJio'i ;toa 

itims fiisjfe^a er^' ■ToJt»tBiXai*-iia:: -rij moil e^bvl sXoe 

;to3ad-fK»s arl:i' l&QnMO oi i^t- >iii toe aaJtvaa b&'sttm^iBSf^ &dt 

^©BiJjrcoo «rf:r lo d-jasKY UtIicfsiX isoil tisajfl ©v«lXfei tofi 

a • ^xiafcoe'i5»b lo ;:fxi©B« :^nl'^smBm sxlit aisw ©rlv/ ^iMLffiS ©aO .Xisvoit'J'l iloJjrSr 
- ?ij ;tl»I gntvaii ^ll&d^d ni cfoiii^isoo cdt bs^u-osxs fens gnibXlxjc 


before Hay 1, 1936, that he read same and that he then delivered 
said letter to plaintiff, who retained it, saying, "It was too 
bad but there wasn't anything to be done about it," This letter 
not having been produced in response to notice to plaintiff's 
attorneys to produce same^ Dickerson testified that it stated that 
•♦The 110 Building Corporation were going to discontinue the use of 
the All-Vac steam control system because it had not made good Its 
guarantee and that the heating condition was not as they desired," 
Plaintiff testified that Dickerson did not deliver the letter to 
him at any tijm and that he had no knowledge of the receipt of 
such letter. 

At the conclusion of the hearing the trial judge, after 
stating that he would •'make some findings of fact now," found 
inter alia that "the system of the All-Vac Steam Control System 
was on the premises and was being used in December, 1937," and 
that "tbe court finds no convincing evidence that a notice in 
writing was sent to th® plaintiff on or before May 1, 1936. *• 
Notwithstanding such findings, thereafter ©n December 1, I940, 
the trial court found the issues in favor of defendant and entered 
the Judgment herein against plaintiff. In view of the above quoted 
findings, wMch were in favor of plaintiff, the judgment must 
necessarily have been based on Miller's failure to prove that his 
system worked satisfactorily and effected the guaranteed saving* 

Plaintiff's theory is stated in his brief as follows s 
"It is the plaintiff's theory of the case that the contract, which 
is the basis of the suit, must be considered in its entirety; that 
under the terms of the contract the defendant by certain acts, con- 
sisting of notification and removal of the system before May 1, 1936, 
could avoid all obligations and be relieved of aJay liability to pay 
the contract price; that the defendant did not avoid the contract 
and by keeping the system upon its premises after May 1, 1936, It 

became obligated to pay the contract price of $800 in four yearly 


004" ai»w JI" t^xiJ:Y.«a t;Ji JosnlB^en odw jllic^iiljaiq o^ ^<^;fc^»I fcijsa 
.^^S^sl sld'i :i&Xd:!^yiB i*«88W ®'iefW ^SJ<i bed 

'XQ ^V 6&^ •asjaiJnoonib oj- gnlog ©"xsw aoictsnoqioO saiMlx^a Oil ariT" 

£;fj: fcoos 9£)sfii ioa bsri J-x sajJBOdcf lae^ats loi^taoo asoie o«ir-IIA exi^ 

".^ertteaJb X9di fiiS Jou aaw jRo.tjJ'lfeaoo :^li&9d 9^i iasii baa s>@Sa&tasJii 

oi 'iQ&:iel edi lov lie t ;.ojirsaloia i/^ b^llliSB^ I'ilSalj&LH. 

cT^^cfa-"^'- ..rc^'c-nov.' iu.aeiS ob''-!:'" 9n:t to meiaxa ®rf^** iJjarU' tiUft 1r*-/fli^ 

-tsfilT'.'nco on gfeeJtl J^iwos add*' ;rjaild' 

^£tz idBbaelsb lo ' itl 3 ore: 1 1- siij fjcu/ol i-uioo Xfiii;?- ©rid 

aohta ^;fQ»i^aoo '>''.■ K,n".i «)8bo suld^ lo x'^o^^i^ e 'llicJxiJtislq edi el ^I" 

-noD ^sJ-oa oiBiieo x*^ -^OBiMBlab &di d-OjsiJno© acif lo ttmie:^ ttdi lobnsj 

dc?X ^X X&J^ Qiolsd K!e;JsXi: Si:i^ lo lavom^i has aol:}B»X'il^Qa lo saxcteXs 

- -'T oJ- x^lXXcfftij; "^CkU lo b&v9ll&i ed Imib anol-JagXIdo XIs blovB fiXi/oo 

'^Td'xioo arid- blovs J-oh fcJtJb d^aafeoslsf) ©j£i;t cl^sri;? l&»iaq iosiiaoo edi 

"<-• t^^tC^X t-C X'<^ 'isd'la BSBlffleaq JUtX aoqsj ©s^e^a Oder Sxxiqssjl x«^ ta& 

Xlis,^i liiot al 0C8^ lo ©ol'iq itjsijrnoo sdi x^'I o^ i)eJ-j38-t-t<^o ejasoecf 


installments of $200 each, the first installment being due 
Ma7 1, 1936, No payment on account of the contract price was 
made. That while under the contract the plaintiff guaranteed a 
specific saving of ten per cent on the defendant's cost of heat, 
the fulfillment of said guaranty is not a condition precedent to 
plaintiff's right to recover, and, furthermore, that even if said 
guaranty might be considered as a condition precedent, the defend- 
ant's action in failing to take advantage of the opportunity to 
avoid the contract, and in continuing to keep the system in its 
premises for over a year and a half, was an admission that the 
guaranteed saving had been substantially complied with or at least 
should be considered as a waiver of the guaranty." 

Plaintiff's position is predicated entirely upon the 
findings of fact of the trial court that "no convincing evidence 
that a notice in writing was sent to plaintiff on or before May 1, 
1936," and that "the system of the All-Vac Steam Control System 
was on tl^ premises aM was being used in December, 1937." By 
reason of such findings plaintiff argues that "the defendant did 
not avoid the contract and by keeping the system upon its premises 
after May 1, I936, it became obligated to pay the contract price" 
and that "the defendant's action in failing to take advantage of 
the opportunity to avoid the contract and in continuing to keep the 
system in its premises for over a year and a half was an admissioa 
that the guaranteed saving had been substantially complied with ©r 
at least should have been considered as a waiver of the guaranty." 

It must be remembered that plaintiff's system was nothing 
more than his patented idea and that all the equijaaent necessary 
to carry that idea into effect was purchased and installed by 
defendant. To show its dissatisfaction v/ith the system, and to 
avoid its obligations under the contract, it was not necessary for 
defendant physically to remove said equipment from its building 
but merely to disconnect same from its steam lines and to refrain 


t>i,'ju. ,..;ii.i."u ^*io-uix^-^n;.iL^ uxii,..- -Ai.o pilose OOSI lo ziaBsdli^i&at 
^;:^s9ri ^0 izos a'^nsMo^sb ©rid' ao ;t«90 ^»q fie;:^ 1© gnlvsc ^Illoaqa 

jasel :J3 to i1;^±w bdllqsi- ' " ttnBJ-acfJiS used bsxi ^ivae b^&iaBi&u%^ 
",Tj^£iB'i.cjj^ oii.r lo •isviGw s 8« B9i©f)iEaoo 9d l)Ii;oila 

SDSsfeJtvs salsjolvaos ok'' iarfit J-iiJoo Xjsiid- sdj' lo ioal lo a^xjbnll 

^I ^sJi siolac lll^Htalq o;t ;t«[»8 asw ^iitil:il'm al solJ-oa 3 d'ail^" 

ffisd-axS loiaiioC iui. ^; Esiaxe ed^** iad^ Ma "^d^^I 

•^g ",^£^X ,i9cffiEeo$u £ii: i^etij ijiixajd esw fcas sesiiasiq 0il:t rto asw 

f>i:i> :^cL&ba&'tQb Qil*" ctarLt q&sj^'lb "ill^al&lq asnifefill liaija lo noesB* 

B98liE9iq ad".?: floqjj las^^sTja ©ri;? axiiq©©:^ ■'jcf biLs ^Ofii;tii©o MS blovfi toa 

"soliq c?OB'5Ktnoo edS taq o^ bo^salXo'o 8flj«o©cf it ^hi^l ,X X-s^ if^d"lB 

lo ©ss^xxB^X/ OiIXxbI £il iioiJ>^« 9i*^nBba&l9b ©lij" ;t-ar(;t 6nB 

BxiJ q^^'A oJ- 3nli)iaj£toi» fil fen* J-Dis-KJnoe add* Bl&vs o:f x^i^^^o<T«Io 9iiS 

jaolsaiiKbs ne aa^^ '^X s rrsvo aol aselcftiq e^l at ats^axa 

10 jd^lw beiXqffioo xJUL»l^asii^6iss a&sd btud i^vss b@d;tj3£*XEcrs Btii i»di 

,:JaFjiMJ^ 9rii lo iq^Ib . eisbisiioo Ci»©«if evsii felx'ode 3aa&l d^s 

giLtxWoxi 2BW £ss>^ax« a*lli^isXq .^siicf £»sidc}ffl©De«t stf c^site il 

Xieaaeaieii :?a0Kqlxrp9 9iiif II« tiidi bn& a«bl beSaoS&q zM a&d:i 9100 

'XXfiJani J&ne tssisxioixiq asw ^oel'ts od'nl fiabi cfaiio" xnso o;f 

©if fciiis ^ae^sX^ ©J roid^oslaid^iseeJtb sc^± troda oT ,iaabci9t&b 

leoi Xi32£G&Qii ;toi . ^toB'L:}aoo »£ii it-bau suoicfsjlXdo a;^l JblovB 

IMS-tbXlifcf eiJl ooMl ctii©fflqi:jap9 bJtBZ svoate'j oct xXXsolaxdq cfa^Jtaslsb 

thereafter froa using it. There can be no question but that 
defendant's sole purpose in entering into the contract was to 
procure the benefit of the saving of at least 10% in the cost of 
heating its building, which plaintiff specifically guaranteed, 
and it is fair to assume that if plaintiff's system demonstrated 
during its trial period that such a saving would be effected, 
defendant would have been satisfied with its performance, would 
have continued to use it and would have made the payments provided 
for in the contract. 

Regardless of the actual relationship that existed between 
plaintiff and Dickerson, in so far as this transaction is concerned 
Miller is estopped from denying that Dickerson was his agent since 
he permitted Dickerson to hold himself out as such by allowing him 
to use the title "General Manager" of the All-?ae Steam Control 
System, both on his business cards and in connection with his sig- 
nature to the contract. While it is true that plaintiff denied 
receiving defendant's written notice of the removal of the system 
from its steam lines on or prior to May 1, 1936, it is undisputed 
that Dickerson received such notice prior to that date and plaintiff 
is bound by the notice to his agent. In our opinion the findings of 
the trial court that there was "no convincing evidence that a notice 
in writing was sent to plaintiff on or before May 1, 19 3^," and that 
"the system of the All-Vac Steam Control System was on the premises 
and was being used in December, 1937," were manifestly against the 
weight of the evidence. Notwithstanding these erroneous flMings, 
we think the record furnishes ample grounds for the affirmaneeof 
the judgment* 

li plaintiff entitled to recover without any showing that 
his system worked satisfactorily and that he complied with his 
guarantee to reduce defendant's heating cost by at least 10% by 

the use of said system? ?/e think not. Plaintiff neither alleged 
nor made any attempt to prove that his system when installed worked 

bs;t,e*i^S£tCH;e5 i-s!€vje\;s 3»tli*KJtsIq Ik i&di aimjaae o;f -xlsl aJt il fans 

bXxfow ,©aiii3an:oli9q sj-J: xi.lxw o&i'lexjss ne©<i 9v«r( blx/ow i-iifibnsleb 
bebjfcvoiq ^inBss^^:- .'>Bia evsii feiUfow Ms ;t.; tbualJcoo ©vail 

nsswd-srf be^ajbce d'jsiicJ' qJtrisxio lifBlsi iMf^OjB sxlct 1© aaoXb'iBSfi'H 
bsniscfeaorj aX noWoBacLsic- , : jsi®:>i£)lG fxm lll;tiiXaIq 

satxis d'nsg^ c J aosrtaaioXQ imi .^aixaeb ffioil b©qqo;f8© aX isIIlM 

loia-flcO iEss;tS 9a^-IXA ©li;! *i:o "rrsssasM Xsisits^" eXiW sri^f bzsj o^ 
*'%lz aiil rld-i^A' aoiiositmoo al fxi^ ib^MO aesitlawcf eiri no riJ-od ,iB9d'ax2 

iBec^s\ ffi:^ 'to e Did- on aei:^!^^ a ' J-flsbaolefc S^ivisosi 

^^fjyqeloatf ai cl-i ^^i^l ,X -^bJ? aXX aia»;ta aiX corrl 

tlJUfrcLa- :^i:*iq solJoi. noei&^olQ i&di 

:o agciMXl exid' ncoliiiqo 'u/o nl ♦d'assa sJa! oJ- solJ'oc ©ifd- xd feimocf si 
roi^on s ;tBxf? 9on<^5Xva silioaiviio vdj jij:;oo XjaX'i;t ©rli 

^i bfijs '\c)£^.'. ., : . .. w gxiXJ'iT* ni 

9ifd- izal^Z'' xXd-aelinwsft f^iew "j's't^X ^rr»d&' bssss gclsd esw bus 

.d-nsrsbwt 9di 
slri Xij-L'7 brilc'CTcr sr*. 7.f:t bne "^XXnoifosleld-fla ibealiovr neitsxs bXjcI 

satisfactorily or ttiat It accomplished the giiaranteed saving In 
defendant's heating costs, the very purpose for which It was In- 
stalled, It was shown conclusively by undisputed evidence that 
during the trial period up to May 1, 1936, notv.lthstandlng the 
combined efforts of plaintiff. Dicker son and defeMant'a employees, 
the system could not be made to work properly and it is highly sig- 
nificant that neither plaintiff himself nor anyone in his behalf 
testified that his system did work satisfactorily. Statements of 
steam consumption covering the months of February, March and April 
in 1935 and 19 3^ furnished by the Illinois MalntenaiKje Company, 
from which company defendant purchased its steam, disclosed that 
plaintiff's system while la use not only did not reduce defendant's 
steam consumption but that it increased same, Dickerson testified 
that the statements of the Illinois iiaintenance Company for the 
months of February and March in 1935 and I936 were delivered to him 
for examination and that he in turn showed them to plaintiff. Miller 
Sealed that he ever saw these statements but as heretofore shown 
Dickerson was his agent in this transaction and delivery of the 
statements to him was sufficient. 

Plaintiff specifically guaranteed that his system would 
save defendant at least 10% on its heating costs not only during 
the trial period but during the entire life of the contract and it 
would be preposterous to hold defendant liable \mder the contract 
when plaintiff made no attempt to prove either that his system 
worked satisfactorily or that it resulted in any saving and when 
defendant's undisputed evidence is conclusive that while the system 
was in use its consumption and cost of steam increased rather thaa 
decreased. It is fundamental that one who seeks to recover on a 
contract must allege and prove performance on his own part in accord- 
aae« with Its terms. In our opinion performance of plaintiff's ob- 
ligation under the contract to install a system that would effect 
a guaranteed saving of at least 10% to defendant was a condition 

-CLt 2j3t? J-1 4oJtrtw 10*1 9£oqi£fq -^isrv 9ii:t ,3^-800 H£i-t;Jn9il a • :JiXBi>jasl©b 
d'sri:!' 9Oja:@f)J:V0 be^^i/qal^xar "^cf ^lerrtBtsloaoo nworie 3sw cTI ,£)«IIa*B 

j29sXoIq:h© ti*^nBm^'i&i> bsts mzi^'AolQ ^ttUnLilq 1o actioll© b&aldisioo 

-sis -^Jjlsiri bfiB TcXnsqoiq 2I10W ocf 9i>Bm sd ;ton bXi/oo aecJ-axa 9x1* 

'tlMQd sM nl 'Sjioynfi icsn l£93®lfi mdrtXfiX'i i&dSlea iotH ia&otlta 

llzqA bW5 doiiM t-^cisiricff'y lo sdiaom ^i atsl^&voo nolj-qintfaiioo ma^it 

^-yi^moO soa&n&iatm atoucslIXI 9£lc^ xd fesiiaiaiifl d£^I baa c£9-i J^i 

srf;:^ £jo«ol9ai5 j«?a«^^5 a:fl fe©«BilS'ajC[ ^Jtislia??)!©^ Ytus^fflos doiiivf moil 

z^&tmfM9t&b 90jufi?-i 5 riao c^on ^ajj al elJbrfw ce^gijg s»lll:>xilaXq 

sjI* lol -^iiqjsoC sanjsasdTiisi" alcjfllXIt 9di lo sd-naasJ-Bcfs sricf cfacW 
aijd o* b$i9Vi.r-6 sievy ^^X bm. ^£^'X nJt rfdiaM 6tt£ -^isxrada'? lo 3ild-no« 
E)X1J3S ,111:.;; xt rsd;J b^worla ciirj xsl Bd i^di bai& aoU sitlaaXQ aol 

&di '..-.. ':H:}b bri::\ ^toWoaSfSis'id J: ;fa©3B aid G3W jooeiss^olQ 

^iaslotVUssi asw mid o;* e*fiftiR?id"&;ta 

• fTrr/. T-rff.' .-' mf ?:.-t F nn x^T .!k:-;kI c?3 d'fl.abnelefc «V3a 

.id boli9q XslTt* Qdi 

...;.,... v.. . ?{foi^i&QqBiq &d blaow 

jBcd'ST' '" '-"■"■' ■'- 'Jibsm lli^fllsXq xi«iiw 

a©d^*r fme. ,.ii.iv-,u V,.'- "- ^ -OJ-. ^-. ^^ ^rXl1QC^0fil^lJ;52 boiiow 

ce;:rexe &d:t sXlfftr ct^d" svifiwlr--' z.;^asi>lv9 b'.iiuqai.basj z*ia&ba9t9b 

£Xsdi iadJl*Bi fcsaastonl ia3®;j'& /.> , .:.oo iacLs nolrf-qajjianoo zil "r." ''f esw 

1000B at SiBq Awu oiil ao &aiLiiii'i.o'I'ifc'q ovcxq bxift sa©XXe izusL io&i:iaoQ 

-do emi;}nlfiXq lo »o/taEiolieq ixolniqo ^ijo xil .8iirie;f &il dits •sob 

ooell^' JdIikmi' imd-J ffls^e^a s XXfe;tsal o* j^OQ%:}aoo mii isibtoxr iioi:tfialX 

precedent t© plaintiff's right to recover. In the absence of 

any proof of plaintiff's compliance with his guarantee the ulti- 
mate finding for defendant was proper and the Judgment thereon 
aust be affirmed, 

le have considered all the points urged by the parties 
and the authorities cited but in the view we take of this case 
we deem further discussion unnecessary. 

For the reasons stated the judgment of the Municipal 
court is affirmed, 


Friend, P. J,, and Scanlan, J,, concur. 


r-aao Siirivi 'io ':^ii-;.J sv? *'e±Y ^litf ai: o*rd J)»i<'XO s«ttl*XDri^&fl arid- £tfia 

.Jbsfii'xil'iis ai d-itfoo 

o JL Jl JL^i^ ^ O o 



This appeal was consolidated for heari^''1[n"this eourt 

with case Ko. 41123* the opinion in which is tMs day filed. 

The decree in that case found the equities in favor of 
plaintiff, Stanley iiruk, on his complfint against defendants 
Mike Mruk and Marie Mruk, ordered an accounting between the 
parties and rereferred the cause to the master for the purpose 
of making such ace o\in ting. 

During the pendency of the appeal in case Ho, 41123 
the master made his report on the accounting and pursuant thereto 
the trial court entered a decree which approved the recosaaendations 
of the master except as to certain credits allowed defendants, and 
which, after allowing defendants certain other credits, ordered 
the entry of a judgment for $6,126.57 against said defendants. 
The decree further ordered that the property now owned hy defend- 
ants be sold and the balance of the proceeds of the sale after the 
payment of the master's fees and costs •%© turned over to plaintiff 
to apply on the said judgment." This appeal is from the foregoing 
decree entered pursuant to the accounting. 

Since in case llo. 41123 we have reversed the original 
decree, which found the equities in favor of plaintiff and ordered 
the accounting between the parties before the master, it necessarily 
follows that the decree based on such accounting, from which the 

instant appeal was taken, must be reversed, 


Friend, P, J,, and Scanlan, J,, concur. 

O Ci 

t^ *iu^.^ JL Cs' ■•^i^ 



\i. its.'.., 



• ibairi ^iii -ialqo eriJ- ^£S.I.r '-.aao xllfijr 

lo Hi: aolj-lxipe mi mwol aaso ^sricf al a»ioe£> erlT 

seoqiuq sdd^ lot TioJasm aild^ o;t &sx/so exli i>©ii©l3i«i baa eaJtd'iAq 

oJ-©i9£a cfasijsai/q baa gnid-owoooij sifd^ no cfioqei aJiii ebaa le^^aBia dd;f 

anoJtd«iJiioiaflioo©T Qd^ bQVcyiqqja dolxiw ©aioafc ^ beiQiae i'woo iBXii sxli 

bas ^ec^nsbns'isb £)©woII*i 8C^l&©io nlsoieo <xi 8i3 cfqaoxe n^^ajsm ©rfi lo 

fc0i9£)io ^ad^lftsTco isrf^o rxle^neo &^aBbaBJ.9b s^lwollis i»d-la ^riolrtw 

-bxislsi) %(i l>®£iwo won -^cfiaqoiq srfd^ iodJ bBi&bio iBd^-'us^ eaiosft wlT 

®dj i^iUs eiufts 0fi^ lo Bb9&ooiq edi lo &Qa&l&di Qdi ba& 5Xo8 ecf zina 

llld-aJtsXq oi 1SV0 bsn-usi 9d" gJ^aoo bus essl s'lsc^aaa erlcf lo ;tnsaniaq 

Sfl:iQ86'i0i ^d:i iaoii al Xs©qq-a aiilT " . JnaaisJox/t SXisa «xit no xXqqa od^ 

♦S«X;i-axJ000B ©iid^ qS iasjjaitsq bsieiae sQioeb 

XsnXaJtio Slid" betiBvai &v&£i sw £SXX-^ .oM ©a so n.1 ©oalG 

bsiebio buB Yiiinl&Iq lo noval nX ^6lJtijp& mii fcnwol rfoidw ^esrioab 

■^Lli&aa909a it ^^@:^a&m. sdi eiolsd ssXd-Tisq e>£iS a.9&^S9di ^liaisooos edi 

ftttf iioXdw iao'xl ,3fiXdTmoo08 xloua no beaad ss^oed erW iJ'add' awoXXol 

«bosa&v@i ecf j-sxiiu ^n^^Laii' saw X£eqqs iaM$&al 

♦OESHsvas sa/iosa 


Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the^^d^E day^f May, i;^ 
the year of our Lord one thoilsand n\.r\^ hundr^ and f9^ty-Q^ 
within and for the Seiond Diltriot of the 

Present -- the HON„ FRs|) G, Hi^E, Presidingf Justic 

HON. Bli^ffS: HUfFimi, Justici 


i ■ 

E. 1. YfflLTERf Sheriff 

BE IT REI/IEIIBERED , that afterwards, to-wit; On -''IT ^ fQ4t 
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk' s Office of 
said Court, in the \'Vord3 ar.d figures following, viz: 

'•€lfn. No. 9646 

M^mBA No. 6 



^ AlPELLATE oArT OF |lI^I3!J0: 
MkY TERM, A/i).|l941. 

Plaintif fS/4 Petitioner 4/ , 



ie/§ndant (Respondent) . 

Petition for leave 
to appeal frora an 
order of the Circuit 
Court of Stephenson 
County granting a 
new trial. 

■'-• ■ V ■; •; : 

John C. Heeb, Ethel Heeb and Msocj Heeb each procured judg- 
ments against the defendant, Walter W. C3-raff , in the Circuit Court 
of Stephenson County, for deunages they alleged to have sustained 
by reason of an automobile collision between the car in "wrfiioh the 
Heebs were riding, and the car of the defendant, which was parked 
on a hard road in Stephenson County. 

The complaint filed alleged that the plaintiffs and each 

of them were in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care for 

their own safety while riding in an automobile, which was being 

driven by John C. Heeb, when the said automobile ran into the oar 

of the defendant, 

and each of them were in j rued. They charged that the defendant 

WQs guilty of one or more of the following negligent, careless 

and unlawful acts of omissions: "(a) Parking and stopping his 

autpmobile upon the pavement of the highway without leaving a 

d .oil AOMOA ^ ^^? .oK .no; 



1 10 THTfcO STAJJSi;^!^ 

9VB8I Hql HO 1*11^9"^! ( ^{p'lB£LOlH$e'Z}\^ttl^uX&M 

-^-..„„ „_.„^....^ ...jse d9@ii ,;„„ :.:.-._ ......_..„ , .- .,_._.: 

©lict xloiil'v" ..-- .,,0 &di iiernvd'ocT noie. - ^lidOiwo&u& an to ccaaei Ycf 

bmiiBCi af?v/ fKofm^; .drRBno^sl? arid- to ibo qA^ b£t£ ^^albli etcew ecfoeH 

ilois© f»£iB al:l;ld-cl^XiS 9di ^&A^ J&ast .- ^ jilt itaJiJBliitaoo 8xlT 

Tol eiBO jiBulb^o btuB &I€mioBS9i to eaioasxift si4* al eism £a.ed& 1c 

35iil9a' SBW iioiriw ,9li:cf0itto*jjjB ixe xtl snlr ^ vr -^cJ-glBa rnvo liar . 

'uso arid' od"nl hbi elitfoiaovfiSEi blB& 9d& neiiw ,cf9©H .0 mioZ x^ aerlib 

itiiBbnel9Jb Qii& to 
d'iusfiiie'iafi ed& &&d!j b&^ij&do x&dT tbeiiilnl e^©w insiij- Ic £iOB9 boB 

B&elQiBG t&n.@^ll^e£i :^nlvjol'.c1 e 'i '>o o'ick- 'ir snc to "^^tXli/s ejpw 

8lrf 2>iilqqc>&Q boB sni:3l'££M , . j i:_.. _ db .CrlWBlru/ Joxib 

JB suIvbbI vlircriJI'A'- yswii-^ri sri-d" ^o &txQtc.eTpa od.-f ccv^rr '5lltfo_^'!Od"uB 

olear and unobstructed width of at least twenty feet on such 
part of the highway opposite such standing vehicle and where there 
was a clear view of said stopped vehicle from a distance of 200 
feet in each direction upon such highway, when it was possible 
for defendant to have avoided stopping said automobile on said 
pavement, contrary to Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 95g, 
paragraph 185. ("b) Permitting or causing his automobile to be 
and remain upon said highway unlighted and unguarded, in the 
nighttime and during a rainstorm thereby leaving a ponderous 
and inherently dangerous agency upon said highway and endanger- 
ing the lives of all users thereof, contrary to Illinois Revised 
Statutes, Chapter 95g, paragraphs 200 and 202 (Abst. 2-i^);" and, 
that as a proximate result thereof, the plaintiffs and each of 
them received personal injuries, and the plaintiff, John C. 
Heeb's automobile was damaged. 

The defendant filed his ansvi/er and denied all acts of 
negligence, carelessness and unlawful adts and omissions in the 
operation of his automobile, as set forth in the complaint. The 
answer f'jrther states that the rear time on the defendant's 
automobile was flat, and on account of said flat tire and condi- 
tion of the shoulder of the road, the defendant stopped his 
automobile on the southerly or right half of the pavement to fix 
the tire, To the defendant's answer, the plaintiffs filed a 
reply, issues were joined and the case heard before a jury. 
After the jury had returned their verdict in favor of the 
appellants, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The 
Court granted the motion for a new trial, and it is from this 
order that this appeal is prosecuted. ■ 


OOS xo 90i-i&*Elf5 s noil ©IoM©T J&«q(xoct-a bioB, to wqIt iBelo b sbw 
elcflBBOcr aj8tr ctl irdrivr jijBV/iisiil d^ira noqir itoictos'iifi liOB© xii d-ael 
JblsB nc oIlcfomorfxTB blB& sfiiqqo^B fcelilovs qvbxI o? &tiab:tel9b lot 

9dr oj 0li<fomod-*jB airi siiiatiso 10 scid-^lfii-ie^i (cf) ,$3I iiqB«s»TtBq 

Slid- Hi tb&b*tBij^aii bos be^£i^lSsus -^BWiisJji fiiusa aoqiy xLiBaei ^as 

airo^«J&i .iVBeX ttfe^oid* niOitaiiliB!! b sj3Ii;jB Biib ©fsid-irls-tn 

•Tes^iBfiii© fi^Xri filBB jtioqif ^onogB aworrasftiBfi ijld-fieiejlni JbnB 

fiesJtvsK: bI'- lyierlJ- en^sif IIb aO eertL ail* s^ii 

tJbiiB " J {^i-S .J-tioA) SOS fixts OQS arfqsiSBiBq »459 i^^fqsiiO .aed-ird-BcTE 

•W"ii«»3ft©- Mb B^TtMxriBiq dM ,1:oe't©,£fd'^lfi»©« @t&isitxo*iii B eB itej^if 

. 'Bfloaieq barlBOQt aLed& 

.£>e;.^raBl) aBw eXMomod'jjB fe'deeE 

IXfl f>©l££©i6 fiSLS 1SWBILB elil 1)8X11 (fusBaelefi silT 

s£l7 III axioiae " -.'^WfiXm; f>£iB aseiiBBeleiBO , e&ouasiXssn 

eilT .cf-nlsXqrac : .'ItfojcicJ-tfB eXxi "io aoid-Btcetj© 

a * dTLBfinetei) ©rlcr no said- laayi 9si& iasii oe^aia ndritia'i lew&xiB 

-Ibsxoo bas erri ooos nc bsna ^te>rt SBvr alldoaoSuB 

aid beqqpiB cirrBfecei©^ onj ,^boi eild" 'tc lefiXi-roris edit lo iiold" 

xtt o* drrefuevx-: vrigii 10 ^X^siiitifoa siict no oX2cfoitto(fi/B 

?. belli stttl^niBS ,'i-9weiifi e'driBftnatefc sxld- oT ,ortlc! erfd^ 

.'iti't /.- '■.•^o:- c :;£[*• fuiB J^Bctot srifsw aarsei ,*{Xq:€»'!: 

Qild- to 10V Tioilj J&e£rax:;f©i bBd ijTtft adcJ- laitlA 

eill' . fjnelaS edct jatfoB.LteqqB 

eirlif rao'tl c v Uom «Mi* ^•;^a»<xs 4'taroO 

,x)ed'iro8Roaq ax XBsgqB aXild' cfB-dd" leMo 

Tha abstract contains the decision of the Court at the 
time he passed upon the motion for a new trial, and it discloses 
that he was not satisfied with the evidence in the case, espe- 
cially that of the testimony given hy one of the plaintiff's 
John C, Eeeh. After commenting upon the evidence of ISc, I-Ieeh, 
the Court concludes with the following: "I think that speech 
of Heeb's is damagins, consequently, the Court is not satisfied 
with the verdict under the evidence, and the motion for a new 
trial is sustained," .., 

An examination of the evidence as abstracted discloses, 
that on several occasions litr. Heeb volunteered information that 
was not responsive to the question propounded to him. The main 
objection is to his response to the question, "Tell the jury what 
you next saw and did," To which he answered, "I turned my car 
in the left lane going east to pass the object, and in approach- 
ing it I noticed a second object silong the left side Tear wheel. 
It wasn't clear what the object was, but as I approached it, I 
realized that it was an object which I could not pass, so I 
started to turn back to the right lane, and then the object 
arose, and I resilized it was a man who had been in that position, 
evidently looking at the left rear wheel, and the thought 
flashed through my mind, — I decided I would take the chance of 
risking my life, and the lives of my mother and sister." — The 
attorney for the defendant objected to this, and the Court very 
properly sustained the objection. Then llr. Heeb volunteered, 
"I turned back to avoid the second object." 

The trial judge not only heard the evidence, but saw the 
witnesses and how they appeared upon the witness stand, and was 


Bsacloa:. -. lot aoltwn 9^^ swq^ feoeasq ad exaid' 

r££ -X^W^^Js SJii lis J. . :^ ijxte ^^bs d-xsn 4/c 

-xloBO^tiq.js fii i»iw» ,aoet<^o ®^^ ae£q o iiio^ ©jubI d^leX ftdiJ ai 

,Is8ii¥/ IBS': tfX aj^d- §4xcXb ;^oet,t^o juaooaa i^ teoiJoii I itX gjaX 

,nolo ■ . )aGi£ 

to eoit£ 3ijj;o©b igiioixl* SedajeXl 

y. t^viX ©Jia bit© ,o1:L£ ^m 8iii:::iBXi 

•• . .to^;' too iiricoea ad^' l>loTfi. o* iOBrf fisnii^d- I" 
od^ woe *Jtfcf ,^QXt^Xve ad* h%mA xSj<.': ri;f enT 

aBW fcjis <£.tiBcfe gaextvtJnf^r arid" AQQi;; l^e-XBdrtqij xnc.^ woii ijiie eeaeecd'xw 

in a Mioh better position to judge what effect the incompetent 
evidence may have had upon the jury in arriving at their verdict, 
than a Court of Heview. The Trial Court has a broad discretion 
in granting motions for a new trial. This Court will not re- 
verse the case unless it appears to us that the discretion has 
been clearly abused. In the present case, Ivfr, Heeb has injected 
into the evidence matters which should not properly be brought 
before the jury, and the statements and suggestions which he 
made were not responsive to any question propounded to him by 
his attorney. 

The order of the Trial Court in granting the defendant a 
new trial is hereby affirmed. 


JKO l:cr©*ioa II) J&BiBltf • J-iifoO JtislT:!!? ©HT .wfilT©£ lo cftiiioO b cad* 

Jbe^©«.£^ eisil cfesAi ,'>:i4 j&l.oo -j-ii^aoxe: 9£lJ " .S^ax/tfja -^c-^iaeio need 

.- 9U^octd"B exri 


SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON", Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . day of 

, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- . 

Clerk of the Appellate Court 

?( 3 

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tussday, the 6t|i day of May:^' ii 

the year of our Lord one thousand ni/e hundred and/forty-|bne, 
within and for th© Second district if thefState 

Present — the HOIT./ERED G, l//(pfE, Preisidi/g Justjjfce 

HOM BLAIip^"|iUEFl'L\lI, JuStqJ 
H^I'I. Jjf£MKlJ:iT R. DOVE, J^s'^ce 
TORTUS L. loimSON, Cler, 
E, J. V/SLte, Sheriff 

BE IT RELIEIiBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On Jl'l, 9 1941 
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk- s Office of 
said Court, in the words and fii^ares following^ viz: 

GEN. NO. 9630 



IT OF miiNoia, 

s;^coND Dis|Ri,a** 

JOSEPH AN^ogr^, fr AL., 




Corporation, ajsf GAIL 

L. BROim, / 


PEAL FROM THE (^B:&^1^^ 


This is a suit by appellees against appellants to recover 
for personal injuries and property damage sustained by the 
collision of an automobile ovmed and driven by the plaintiff, 
Joseph Antosz, with an automobile owned by appellant corpora- 
tion, and driven by appellant Bromi. Trial by jury resulted 
in verdicts for appellees as follows: Verdict for Joseph 
Antosz in the sxim of $500; verdict for Josephine Antosz in the 
sum of |100; verdict for Jean Luberda in t|ie sum of $100; 
verdict for Josephine Luberda in the sum of §900; and verdict 
finding Joseph Antosz not guilty as to the oounterelalm of 
appellant motor corporation. Appellants bring this appeal 
from judgments entered on the verdicts. 


C .OH AOKa^i. 



, . JA 1^ ,5510'tTlA IHSBOTi 




B^-.bwi ,2fiOTOM 8800 


( JJ^'IiAJ-ia^^i: 




-aoiocrioo itnjsIIeqqB v:<f Beitvrc ©lidcaaod-jje afl xid^iw jSacdrtA riqeacT. 

&05l-Xir8®n ^-Siit Y<^ Ibis's .nsroia *fBBXX«ffq;fl ^cf flsviil* bas ^aol^ 

dqaeoTi lot cJ-oitfilsY tawollol bb 89sXX»^g« lol 8tfolJba©T ax 

ari# iiX saod-ii/i, sjxXxlqaaoi; gLot $ {00$| lo jaurs eiid- al sao*nA 

d-ol^ioY bos'- J 00^ 1o mua 9/ld- al BbieduJ ealdgBGol lol Jolfiiev 

to sal&Loie^atsoo ed.-j o^ eb Y^-ti-"^ ^or; ssocJrtA dqaaoTi anifixilt 

lB9qq_B aiiid'.Bnl'id' e^J'iisXXeqqA .xioXc^Bioqico lod'oxa stxrsXXeqqB 

,a&DlbiBr ©lid" no fes'ra^xie ad-xiofflisfijjt molt 

The accident occurred at about eleven o'clock on the 
night of December 3rd, 1938. Appellant Brown was in the 
employ of the Goss Motor Company, as salesman. The car being 
driven by Brown at the time of the accident was the property 
of the defendant, motor company. 

Appellant motor company contended that the car being 
driven by Brown at the time of the accident, was being driven 
for his own pleasure, and that at such time, he was in no way 
acting as the agent of defendant corporation. The proof of 
the respective parties to the suit is, that while they were 
in their own proper traffic lane, the other came across the 
black line and ran into them. The impossibility of this situa- 
tion is at once apparent. Under such circumstances, the cars 
could have no more collided than if they were standing still. 

Under such circumstances, it is the function of the jury 
to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. In addition 
to this, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hear- 
ing them testify. The case was tried by an able and experienced 
trial judge, who approved the evidence. 

We find no errors assigned for reversal by appellants. 
However, the record has been examined, and this court is of 
the opinion the judgments should be affirmed. 

' : ' Judgments affirmed. 


Y^ieqciq ©no- s^v; ^rni^i^iooe o ; :'i* aild- ^jb iiwoie Tjcf aerlib 

^fiwf ojr: iix RBiv 8x1 ,SKild" rloi/s d^e (tsiitf X)aB , six'sjsslq xwro eid lol 

Q-isv: '.as ©fid" od adJidxeq. dvlJ-o^qaai edd 

©x?d aaoio,3 p'-u:^ aaajo cv^;v ,.9ii/:il olt^Bid is<jpnq nwo tiexid xii 

-Bijif-ie alii'}' 1:o Y-^-C^-t^-tsao?^ edT .aieild- otnl aai fias ecil rsIOBld 

BTsc srid jeeoiiBd"afflM©^xo jioaa tsfiitCT ♦.tns^aqqB «oco d"/} al cold 

.IXiifi 3n4:l)asd'a @q:9W is@4d "2:1 ABild J&©feiIXoa a^om oii ovjbxI tli/oo 

-^iifl exld- t© Jioidpiififl; M«t ei dJt lasorrjsd-anufo^lo jdojue rseScU 

xil©Jtd-iWj3 III ,a9*e«s#iw 0il#^ '^o ^tfiXicfl^e^o ©jid aoQir aasq cd 

-Tssil boM 3£:le(»a to e^sd'fOBVfcfi add: BbxI diuoo I^i:^ Qxld ,aiild od 

flso£i3ir3:eq;x® j&jis «X<« ix« '^ei fieiid sbw e&jao ©xtT .i;*iJtda«d aaild anl 

.0^fi6f>lT9 ©xid Bsvoicq^B oxiw ,a3^ut Sjillt 

Ic si d^iroo aljdd' S>m& ^JosaLlasxs aestf ajsd ^nooerx eiid jieTSv^oH 
. I>&iiiii;'3:'ij& ©cf Mju-o4a adxtftmsJbx/i, itd^ aolatqo sxld 

,i;f.:i-i,-C,.l l..t. 



SECOND DISTRICT J j^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testiniony "Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty-. __^ 

Clerk of the Appellate Court 



Begun and held at Ottawk, on TiJ^day, the 6th^d.,ay of May, iji 

the year of our Lor/l one tt/ousand nine , (Hundred,^ and for|;y 
within and for tha' Second pistrict ofi^the State of Ilfi 

' I / M -^ 

I - f i 

Present -- the HON / FRED G, |/OLFEj,-."PrQpiding Jjifslice 
HO^. BLAIlJE,,«pf FltUT, J-^stice / 

IL&1VTR.^J^TKLI|T R. DOVE, Jlte"fice 

luSTUS L. J(tlNSON, Clerk 

E* J. VffiLTEp, Sheriff 

11 I-A, 254 


BE IT RSI.ISIIBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On .!!n <) iq4] 
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of 
said Court, in the words and figures following, viz: 




mm*i!SQ, 96S5 

kom^^ Ko, zi 

wT^ii i 

III ■ ' j <rt y S i | ^ 

Ami^ H. aiiAiiM,^, 

fl Q-:mJ^^j immojB ooisrry. 



a^*" ' - «^— '*»«• 

la tii« Oireuit Court of Irofuais C^uatF* Appellant fll@m 
his motlom to ira<mt@» sat aside » and l:^ld fcix' imugMt thm 

Su4^mn% s?«S:nd9r@d, "foi* the Tm.»<m tiaat tlj* wart^nta of 
attors©^ attadk&d to th® smtmrBl aotos in sal^ complaint 

raeatiou©<l wa© a jcniat aad mat a s®va:iral wiari^iat si" 6ttom,®y»'* 

Tit® dispositi^^B of thia «mse 1» o«jatpoli©d fey Holiasa v, 
Partrida:e» 375 XH* 521, «l®sM©d siao® tke appeal was ts^mx 
hm:min* The jMgjMiat is thmr^f^ie® &ttti?wm4.* 




mi9 ^rf,:>i.;iw %ali Mca?. s^is^i ,>?>;-- jt&b ^vj ,?5gft^Bisv ot noiJ^csn alii 

;>i--* '• ^ l;>i«» al taw'lttjs Xb««v»« ©Jit ^/ ' :'Z&Si» 

,-f' ' ^^* ^ ^^^^^ i^^*"^^ ^«uc- , >■ ■■ ■. — - 


SECOND DISTRICT J ' I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my oflaee. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 

Cleric of the Appellate Court 

'^TI/'V: OF 
S., Pehrusr-v Tenm, A.D, 1"^41 ^ 


fdAY 31 1941 



Torm No. 41Fi3 

Agenr'a No. 9 


Plpi nt 1 f f -A^^rlo*!^ , 

VICToriA '■'Ani^O-i^SKT, ) "^ 

Defendant-Appellant, ) 


1 rom 
City Court, 
of ViBst Frsi^^ort. 


CT^.,BFFTSO?:, J. 

Tliis Ie an ajpesl rrom s juc.rrnent for i)OEsespl-n of 
prenifcs In a forcible entry end detsirjcr action, -■rt^rec' in the 
City Court of V/est Frankfort, Tlliroie, in frvor of Appellee, POSIE 
RUSP7LL (hereinafter cellcc' plaintiff), arc arain't APPFLLAI-F, 
Viprpnrx: ^AH>!0^;CFI (herd nn i^t^r call-n defendant). action v.-aa orl-^"nrlly 1nptiti.-.ted in the court of a 
Justice of the peace in Prarkfort Tov^-shlp, and t^-'orea^ter teken hy 
a rhen::e of vpnue to another Justice in the fjart'.e tovr.ship. After 
juflpment v;as r'^n':-ercd in ff-:vor of plaintiff in -uch court, pr\ appeal 
TR'Bs tsk'^n h" df^f^rr'nrt '-^ ^he i"-'A.-^- Court of West Frrnk^ort, Illiroia, 



The plaintiff had been in pop session of the prenlsr? in- 
volx'ed In the forcible ertvy vnc dctelner sction by rerson of the 
fvct tbfit her husband bed entered, into a contract to p-urrrnse the 
pr-:-rr.iFies prior to t^-^e. tirie of b'p dr'-:0th. Th>-re wfe evidence thet the 
plelntlff cortinii^^d in pOs'=!Fession o^ the precipes r.nd tbst no action 
WOP f'ver hrou.h^ to forfeit or rarcel the contrert of purcbaF--, The 
evic'enre .or plaintiff shoMs-B tbrt while -pbe vps teri^por^r H.y avstxy from 
her home the defendnnt took popsepsion of the pre^rilses s^.fter hsvlnsr 
fii'st obtained 8 6ee6 fron the owner of '"he pre!r,igep, w.lf'' v?hoTr: the 
plaintiff's deceased hus'^'Pnd hpd s contrs^ct for deed, "^he faction v.e? 
thereupon institut:'d to r- cover posfession of t^-e prerr-.ines on the 
theory tl-st a forcible entry of the premlpes v,8p niede by the cefend&nt 
while the pr-'-nlses vere in the possession of the plaintiff. 

It is contended by defenricnt in tb ' r Court t'^at the Trial 
Court erred in entering iudfrrsent in *"svor of pla'inti'f arte sa-einst 
defendant, and In orderlnrr rr-stitutl-^r: of the ^.renlses, for the 
reason V-&t the requirernents of the .^■■orc'ble E^.i-ry snd ret«:iner /'ct 
were not co-iolled vlth end are not pres-nt under the fr.c';?, end it 
1p likev.'ise contended, that the Ju.'^tice Court in v.'bich t'-^e csee t/as 
tried, rp well &s the City Court, were v.jtbout jar " ?dict Ton by reos'on 
of the fsct thnt the plsintiff nnd '-eferdent "'^oth rr-sided *n t'se sarv.e 
township (In which t!->ere ore qu&li'"ied Justices of the P^ace), and 
that the ection wrs cor.i:r:enced in enothcr tovrrfi"'- ' p in the parrie county, 
in violation of Piersf^rEph 198, Ch^'pter 79, 1939 TLIJ^'OIS F^VTP^^D 

V'-'hi.le it 1e contpndod qirite ppec^ficall- in the brief of 
defendont that oblectlon v;es risde et fill times to the luripd"", ctl^n 
of the J-;,rtico Court anr o^"' the City '~->urt of Fror>lin County, by 

"viaj of notion to, the plaintiff stntes ths^ no objection was 
nede to the Jurlsdicti '^n of the Justice before whorr; the case vas 
tried, We have searched the Record Bnc eve unrhle to find sny record 
of en ob lection nsde on the .n-roimd of lnco'"rect venue prior to the 
filing of a notion to vac&te ludrment in the City Court of West 
Frankfort o'^her than ^he application for c'';an 'e of ■<i'enue whr'ch does 
not rslv'^e the Ippue which defendant eeehs to raise in thl,'? court 
ivhich irotii^n was made after the judment hrd been entered in that 
Court .'"ollovinr the trial of the crae on appeal. Under the circum^ 
stances, v.e nust conduce triat defendant '^-as vaived the question 
of venue. 

As to the rip-ht to rnei nta'' n a forcible er.'"ry and detainer 
action, under the factr it riust be recopTiy.ed that ncre default under 
the termp of the contract v«'8s not 1n issiie and could not heve been 
ralsr-d as a oefenee in t^ila ca?e, and that it Vi'&s not proper to try 
or determine local title of the premises in p-ach rction ( SH'T.i.'AK v. 
MO SLR . 204 111. 134). The defendant could stand in no better position 
than the grantor in her deed would have stood }isd he himself attempted 
such entry. 

Tliere is Fome conf^lict in the evidence as to ^.vhpther or 

not the deed had actually/ be^n in defsndEint'p popscrsion at the time , 

of the entry, but for the pi;rposep of this case, it is unnecessary 

that ve consider such rjiett-r. The Trial Court could have properly 
concluded that the entr^^, under the facts, ras nrde a-ainrt the vill 
of the plaintiff and v/l-i:ie she vas in possess 'on of the orernises 
(-^tj.-"-:r ^. c^^IC^nO TITLE ^' TRU^T CO .. 2'?0 111. 620), and v^iiile plain+lff 
was temporarily absent from her hoT.e ( PH""LPS v. R /iT'LOLFF , 147 111. 

Under the circiim.s bcnces thie ,1ud "Tien t of the City Courb of 
West FranV--''ort , Illinois must be affirrried. 

ryuj A A'^^-f■^^ 

Jud^Tnent .AffirTr.ed, 



VIM'S! 1941 


.A. 294 

/trends Vo, 3. 

f'lTY OF FAII^Firir, 

Plaintiff-/ op^qjee, 

Ap^enl "TTOTi 
Circuit Court 
) '^K^. '^Va-'/ne County. 






This is an aopesl ■^■"r^tn s .iur^irrnent entered in the Circuit 
Court of r.syne Count-, on June 20, 1940, In the a^^iount of ;'5,154,r-9, 
to.fjether with intorerst and costs, -Jn favor of the Plf^ intif f-Apoellee, 
riTY 0^ i-AIPFI~LT: (herelrp :^ter called plaintiff), and p.fsinP-t Defend- 
ant-Appellant, SEXTOl^ KAI^UFACTfRIN^ COMP/T"', a Corporation (herein- 
after called defendant), T/iotions for Nev Trial and In Arrest of 
Jud-fTment v;ere nsde and overruled, and this appeal follov;s. 

The case was tried before the Court, v.-it'out a ,1ury. 
Plaintiff's puit vras brought to recover : (First) The payment of a 
note riven '■'^'j defendant to plaintiff for electrical ?ervices furnished 

• 1- 





ij: boT-' 

'.' '*:o lovei; rf' 

18 Is 

!3ne ctRaT:93nl 

8«w e? 


by pl8int.:'.ff to def-^ndant -prior to April, i:"'.'5h; (Seconc) For 
e!l.ectr5cal perv'ce -furrl pbed by plf?int-lff to Hefrnclsnt "rorn April, 
i;'),35 to .T'lly, 1935, inrluplve; snc , (Third) For \vater furnifihed 
and pupplled 'r^y plrlntirf to d.efcndsv.t. 

It ms po-reed by coimpel :'"or tbe psrfies tbst ple!nt'!-''f had 
furnished veter to defendant o'f'' the vj^iue o*^ flSSio.Of-, for v-hlch 
dcff;ndf.nt ''' not poid ple^ntiff. It vwb furt^:ftr pdT;ltted by the 
deff^ndfjnt thet plfjlntirf had "uiT-lshed defer'' ant v. 3 th l-rllov.fitt hour? 
of electr'csl current r-s charred In plaintiff 'p corripls'nt , but re- 
fenrent clnin? not to o^^e plr.lntiff therefor for reasons hereinafter 
set forth, 

Defcndsnt contonded er\r Fou'-ht to fvolr llf;.b!llty sp to the 
note Fued on on the rj'ound thst it."? execution vas unauthori^'ed >iy the 
Rorrd of rir ctorn of t'r^e def'=^ncant corKJort'ti-^n, and t'-^at the E8''^:e 
wes secured, by durosp pnd ext-^rti'^n; end f^'urther s^ourht to svold 
llfibllit^r B,p to plaintiff's dharr© for electricpl --urrent fismlshed 
by plaintiff to defendant "ron April, 1j35 to July l'J.'^6, for the 
refipon thtt an improper rete vs.? b-^In'" chr-vfed therefor, 

DefencBnt, by its croFS-co y)l8 Int , chsrred the t it hf-c 
been compelled b:-' duress and extoT'tlon to pa7^ r^vcrcbvv'ycS to the 
plelnti f city In the siim of .■30,872. 02, End preyed .iU'-^^mcrt against 
the City of Fr^irfleld ^n the nniount of iS5,99f>.61, sft-r Pllov.'ln^- the 
ijlaintlff city ell credits to which it was entitled under defendant's 
th vory of thin cose, 

Plr. Intiff, in its. reply to defendp.rt's crop?-C'^'''iplp1 nt , 
denied the vRlicJty of Ordint-nee ruTher 187 (beinr tlie Ordinence 
vnrev v?h ' ch de-'^'.'ndant ('■la'.mod it should hpve been cherp:ed for electri- 



CP.1 -current), and contenc'erl that it irpp null and void; and, upon 
the hep.vlYift upnr^ a !.!oti'-^n to Sti?lke h;; the plaintiff, the Court 
ruled Ordinance 157 to he vol'-"-. With ths Trial Court's rulin^^ on 
this contention, ne find ourselve? in accord. 

The pleadinn-s in tl'is esse ore quite extenpive, end the 
Record volu'ninoup. ¥.Fny of the facts in connection ■'.'vith th i ? cepe 
appear not to he in dispute. The evidence discloses that the defend- 
ant herein ivas e corporrtion en ■R.P'ed in msnufpct'.ir ' n"' 1n the City of 
Fairfield; t>iat it employed p, conpiderehle num'^er of men; that it 
had used the current produced hy the plaintiff city for aany 7rears; 
and had also used city v.'ater, furnished by the plaintiff h'->rein, 
for many :'ears. 

The City Clerk of pl<jintiff cit-^^, identified the note 
involved in this suit, and te-z-tifieo thfr t it Pore oste of April 23, 
1935, and y-as in the princip&l pura o^^' i-BT^.gS, peyahle five i-nonths 
after date, snd that said note C'^ntalned a pro'i^ision that: it wavS 
payable at the ra'-e of /;:200.00 per month, 

Charles Vv, ycCulloup-h, a Dir-ector and Treasurer of defend- 
ant company, v/hen called as a vr'tness "■y the plaintiff, identified 
his sip;nf!ture to the note in question, rnd admitted ha vine- si'^ned 
said note, "Sexton Menuf acturinn- Cornpsny, C. W. T,'CCullouph , Treasurer." 
He testified thst 8t the time the note was criven, '.-r. Blsc'cburn (who 
vj8s then T.-'ayor of Fairfield, and wh 'se ter^^- v/ss about to expire) 
came to the office of the defendant snd pu^'c^-ested ths.-^ said cowpsny 
gii'e a note co't'ering Its account ui th the City of Fairfield, and thst 
this note was ^Iven as a result of thst request. He further testified 



lO^-'. ' 

ff.. n ft.!.'' 'i'" 

^ • "!noo 3i- 

^fTi'&.ir.f- erf*? 


■0 eriT 

•JflB ,3f 


3 fceXJleo n«rfw ,v-tt«qmco :tnfi 

-f':1'-=^yo ni or^nrt fl:"''^ orf e-^tri' '^a'^i 



that at that tlrce he hi-d chorcre of the financln- of the defend55'nt 
compen^'; thn t he hod signed other note? for the defencprt con'osny; 
and that It x'.'S? h5.F prect5.ce to Fi.rn notes of the riefendent cornpsiry. 
He further teptlfled v'^^on Vp.yor '^'IscUhurn car.e, requeptlnn- that 
this note be signed, that th^-rre vrere r.o threritP -r^sde th»t, he r^'called. 

L. h» ^leci-rhurn, testified bb a vrltne^-s for ole'ntlff, and 
stated that hs wer mayor of plaintiff cit^r on the f^nth of April, 
1935, v^hen the note in queptl--"-- 3n this snilt wss executed , He 
testified that a? the end of his tep'i as 'nayor approached, the 
defendant coripeny was Indebted to the city, and t " at It vas his desire 
to have all t'ccoun^a petti ^d. If possible, b-' the end of his term, 
and vclth that In nlnd h^ spked the defendant company to m&Ke a payrrent 
on its account, .'.nd t' defendant cornpany 61r -niake p payn^'nt. In part 
by a check, vlth ths balance by note. This? Y.-ltncs furt^ier testified 
thfit there v^b-s no dispute as to the oTnount defendant company ov^ed and 
no objection ^".ace by d^i'epdnnt company to the .T-'vln-T of a note, ond 
no Intimidation used. Thljr i' Itneps further testified that there fas 
persuasion used, and that he told defendant conpeny thnt hp didn't 
wnv.t to leave office with "an --'ccount 1 ' ke tl-" t open," The eviden'"e 
discloses that this vltnerp v.'bp at that tlr.e a Dlrect:"^r of the defend- 
ant cornpany. 

This ritnefrs further tcrti^'^ied that defendant company waa 
chorf*ed a 2-(^ vete for electr'clty; that the rate ^n.b.p s-t durlnfr his 
ad'nlnlstrptior J and It y:f.ip set at that amount for the rospon that a 
like rate was ■••iven bo the Ca-Tipe factor*; (v^hlch r/cp al?-o opsratln,^ In 
the City of Fairfield)* that said rate vsc brouc'tt about by the fact 
that the Campe coiiioam- ves closed dov/n end that It yips :,>rov£lled. uoon 


J 3" 

Of! i 'IV 

lis 4 'iO -5^7 rj f-r-:j 
•0 ©C)m^\0 »rfr' 


to Open by '-ivln*' It the 2j rste, TVzl? conceaslon to the Csmpe 
Conpany wes !npc'e b^- the nayor and council, without cr.^/ official 
record belnr rrisde thereof, anci bec8uae they believed It the best 
thln^- for ft''^Rry'-->ne concorr*^d to cret tb.e CR'^:p0 corporeti ->n opened for 
business ar-ain; and that Kince the defendant cornpsny v;es doing the 
same type of v.orlc fin-' enployin-rt c^bout the ??■ me kind of lebor, that 

they folt It was only fclr that the «ar^e rsite should be extended to 
defendr-nt cor.p«i,ny, Tb-ls rote v.-ap tben, eccord'ncly, iven to defend- 
ant compeny \-;ltbout any reouest from defendant cor-npany, and v,'tthout 
the fi^,te.T^Br\t co'npany'p kno-wled^e until the bills were- ?'nt to it ot 
the lov/er rate, 

Tbe Meter E\,ipprintendent, v,ho reed and repaired the r:,oters 
durinc J.'ayor '^.l&chburn' s Rdn-iinistratlon, frova 1931 to 19?5, testlfie 
that he r':^ad the electrical n- tcr of the dofendcnt compsn-^^ and thst 
after he had reed aono, V'e vould -o to 8 I'lr, TroT.ley (nn en-ployee of 
defenr-rnt conppny) one jTi-e him the -trieter readins. The e^/ldence 
then shors that s: id re«din-^-p v. 're taken by !!r. Tronley to the city 
hall and tb^re checked for sccarT c^-, -The Cit:/ Gler'r testified tbet 
eft r he hsd ■^i'^rured the billB, be v.-ould take both the li'iit and v;£.ter 
bills to the defendant conu.icny i;^r\r\ cl^e^^k them>^ Mr. bro^nley, one 
that there never was eny dispute as to the e^ioun'' '^v.<^- thpr-^ never 
any claim made of on oxi'erch/ i^t'-e. Mr;!, Hut''i Stev/crt, sn esFlFtsrit in 
the City Cl-'rk's office, te?t"f1ed tl^t be ^-nere out part of the bills 
that v.erB s'nt to t^'ie defendf?nt co^psny and thst thsy v.'-'^'re fj pruned for 
accuracy v.'lth sn employee of the defe^'-'dant con-'po'-.'y, and if £1^3^ 
takes ])ad been raade in the f ii7;vjrlns'-, that thei,' v,ere corr'cted. 


q XlBf 



The Defendant Vier:\ln, by viuy of arfense snr' In support of 
ItP co'^xn lev -claim, sought to show certain r-eoorrs thr:t refcndrnt 
terdered, to prove the cost of produrtlon of the eleotr'.cel enerfry 
fiirnl shed to the defen'^rint compsny hy the plrlntl-^f city for rr'.fcny 
years prior to 1935, hut ohjectlor to ths t line of t'^^ti-nn-n.y v;es 
suetsined b" th.e Court, and ?;h'lc 1+"- 1? ur~9d v.ith rrrest reriousness? 
that it wn? error to exclude that evl '■lence , vve are persusded that the 
Court correctly ruled In denyin,'? its ad-drsion. 

It \v'Ould see-^ to us, frorr, s ^'f ir examinetjon of the evidence 
Iji- thl? case that, at t^"e time the note 5n f ontroverp;;: wap. "■Iven, a 
settlement of this account v--sp hEc end the arnount due arre^-d upon, 
and v?e see no renGon 'Or :'hlrt'jrb.1nn- it » 

The R7J-Lev.'s of the defendant company w'rc' rece''''"^d 5n 
evidence, f-;nd ve hsve exsrrjined sp'iie. The P^oretfiry o^" the '"'eferdent 
comprny v;as p;:r-ittec to en^y-r, over objection, that the r?cord of 
the meetjnfls of the Bosrc of rirectors of the defe-dent convpsny did 
not dir-clo-e any authority ever hrvinp- been -Iven to C. V,'. iiicCullptigh, 
then Treasures of the defen- ont co.'^ipany, to pi'-n the note in contro- 
versy in this cese, '^"Tiis witness also testified t'^st she bed con- 
ferred vrlth I'eyor '=lscV"-iurn "^y telep>-one an;"" hsd made sn sprjo'ntment 
with end hnd an interviev/ with hJm , end at thr^t time sn arrerre- 
ment V"as n-pde to rettle the ecr-ount ^■^ t^ie d?f.--ndsnt conoany vith e 
note and the bclsnce in -"srh. She further testified t'-et st thfct 
t!rae Uv, ?;;cCullourh vm? out o:*^ the city s.nd. thet she in'^or'ned the 
Keyor th'-^t v-hen Ur- , T.ieCullou --h ret ^^r nee the note t.ould be s'-ned. 
This witness '.'urther testified thet vh.en Mr, ?.''cCullo\ifh returr«^d., 
she took t' e iriptter up vi. th him end he executed the r^ote. 



- ?iqfin|>A 



It Is ■"•oil establlphed the t psyment of "roney vlll not he 
held to be pf-ld iir(^-er di;T"e?.s rrd rncy rot be veco'^Tevec' unless psid 
under such pressure ss to interfere with the free en 'oynent of riphts 
of pernor, or property, erd Enjch co^npulsxon muft fvirr'sh the Tiotive 
for the pcyment pou.'-ht to he rvolded or recovered, Proor tl-u'.t (^re 
party if under no le^al ohll-Etion to pay the fnoney end thst the 
otlier hsa no rl ht to receive It \b of no conpeauence \1nle2s the 
payment v«ap conpulfory. In the son-^e of deprivln'- the ono na'^lni- It 
of the excrcire of his free v^ill ( MILLS v. FOT?RT~oT ?KFS?:RV^ . 545 111. 

It hap lono- been n rettled [)r 'nclpl*'^ that e voluntary coir- 
pror.l ?.e or nettlemsnt of doubtful r-nd con^'lir tin;: clr imn vrill not be 
set a?ice or ''Istr.rhed In the courts, '^.•l'^ rule I? ro ^"& '•o.i 1 i s r bp to 
not require citation of authorities ( S^^VI'R v. MI?C!"'LL . 45 111. 913). 

In order to render s payment co-pulsory, such a pressure 
must be brour'-.t to '■•ear upon the person osy^n" £ ." to interfere, in 
some vvay , \i.'ith. the free en 'o-nent of hi?; r 1 '■•■'■its or person or property 
|STOVLR V. MITCHELL, Supra; SWANSOK v. I JA^.:E;:;, 63 111. 165). 

It ha? been a universally recognized rule that r.oney paid 
voluntarily under a clptr- of rlr^ht to the payment and \''1 th '.^nov^ledpe 
of the facts by the peraon '"ckin," the psysent cannot e recovered 
I'-ack on the ground that the cl'^iir was llle^ral. It hf-o been deerned 
necessary not only to £?h.o\r that the clat'-n aspertec v:a? unlawful, ttHit 
also that the payra^-nt v-'p p not voliintary ; ^'hst there wae some necessity 
wh'ch, aniounted to c->mpul?lon, snr- payr;:ent v^b.b rasde under the influence 
of such co?npulElon ( ILLIl'IOIS ^l.f'^^r -r>. y, C'lCAGO -^m~:?^''~mF. CO .. S34 
111. 555). 



A ,p;reat decl of sppce Is trken u[; In the V'r'covd vlth ■he 
tostlinonij!: of an oxpoi't '^-rltripps, vYo sour---'t, amon- of-^er hh^nrp, to 
establish the cof?t of the ftlcctrlcpl enorsry furnlphed the r'efencFint 
company over a lonp per-lod of vf-srs, sncl eIpo ept8''->l'ph at-rne for the 
years 193v5 ond 1036, snd }ie p-avc ap h' a opinion t}ie proprT rate to 
be clinrged the clefendent cor-.pnny froT; Ijecen-ber, 1923, to and Includ- 
ing July, 1937, was n li^y rete per kilowatt hour. 

It is Mvpec 'vvlth rr-'^'ict insistence in ''.his rase t>''Rt the 
counter-ciSlm heroin should pre-^all for the reasf^n that the defendant 
heroin WEF o\'erchar''ed over e loni? period of -ifars, cno ^^■BS. corr^pelled 
to pay such overchf.r!:'"es, sr.d thr t the note h-:;rpTn wps r scared by 
duress Br,c^^ extortio'", en6 our Rttcntlon is further directed to the 
fact that there wcs in force an Ordinpne''->. o -' the p-ielntlff city, hy 
the tcrx;- of v:hich a cu-tom- r vi'-i':'?'.^ hill vbp unpaid bvc r---relned 
unpaid, would h; ve his service dirconnected f r the non-payT?ht 6f 
said hill, and al?o it is urre'^ thst the Mayor of the olsintiff city 
in securing the note In^-ol^'ed in this liti .'Nation, wsp p-iilty of 
duress end extortion. We hfve ^^ Iven careful conridera''ion to all 
th;:se contentionr and v^e fail to find snyt-'n" in. the Fecord t" at in 
.any way indicates tl e persuas^^ion ue.ed by the yayor of the plrintlff 
city at the time of proC'.'rlnfT the rot':., vms improper ir< any v.'ay. 
From this recoiv'i It v-ould poern to i;r. thst he %bs v falV.hful public 
servant vho 'rindful of '"ds obli:~a":ion to the city be v/s.s servinr 
as nayor, and It was '•^is cep:'re to l-nx-e the h\\s^r\'~ pr of the o'l.ty in 
food rhope at f;he ex''x\ o^ bip term of office. '."e are not Impressed 
with the contention thsit the proin'Fion of the Ordini^-Toe for the dl^,- 
continuin^ of electrical ener<--y or rster rervice ''o pa'^r^'^ns of the 
plein'tiff city If t>;ey did not pay the.'r billF, ras a provision that 





-f^rt• r.c 7 r.'^t 



could in B.ny.vlBe be construed, es itnurope^r, enr' if the rnsyor of 
plaintiff city used .^ereucslon ^n brin.Ti'nT e'lout a ?e'-tl!-^ment of the 
account r":uc frori def rdant coTnupn;^, thf:t Inpo-'ar sr ti-;!? Fecor^d cls- 
close?^, the persuoclon xvas well wit'ln the hounc's of propriety, 
^ Durosp has been r'eflned as a conr^ition ^ b " ch "Kirtr vhere 

one induced by an urlnwful art C another to rr.eike s contract or 
perforrr or forc'-^o an act under circurnstmce? vhich deprive hiiT. of the 
exercise of his froe will. Th'^re 5^iust be puch con-pulsion sffectinr' 
the rn.1nd be ?hovs thnt th^e execvition of the contrpct or other inp.tffu- 
ment Is nO;t the voluntary act of the r.pirer, Buch corrtoulslon must be 
prepent pnd operPite st the tl^^e !"' i- the inptrunr^nt Is executed. The 
biJrdfn o^" j)rovlr-^J" '^•r^'^ess Is upon the party chprfln- riiress (S^^^l_^^?TrY' 
V. SFL-^T^FKY, 36T 111. 179j WiCY'-^. v. DFCK-^'R . 324-111. 457). 

jMere annoyance or ^"exatlon v^ill not f-orstltutf- duresp, but 
there raupf. be such corroulslon affectlnp- the •^nlnd s.s Phowp thai the 
execution of the contrsct or other inftrur, rit ip ^ot the voluntary 
act of the mkcr ( ^'AF^IE v. FL.^TT^ . 28?- Ill, 22?; Z£Z22Il™L2!2Z-^lI£ 
ARTSv . HAR-pjtNG . 331 111. 330), 

This Court vlll not disturb the flnd^nrs o"^' the Trisl Court 
who heard and sev tlie witresseE unle?? ri;ch ' Indincs sre n^.a;-;! fertly 
asjalnst the/, evidence ( FLOB'^PO v. FLO^ERO , 358 111. 626), 

In ti^1p cRse ve ''lolr the "u''^--nient erter:~d b'" the Court Is 
not orainpt the man! feat wei- \t of the evl-erre, '-ijit R-r.plv svipp-orted 
ther'ehy, prd,; said jud>,'racnt beln':- correct, It is hereby affrrned. 

Jud .' ■•rne n t a f f i r m 5 d . 



, Paolo 

fj t» f f5T« 

in-^r:r'r&^'^* «... f^aoicq 

1.., ^„ ^ + .., 

/ .-,p V f f"^ r^'c 



and hel 

Qtt.av/a, on Tuesday, tlie 6th day of May, in 

year it our/ Lord one thousand nine hundred and. ,J^g^ty-one, 
fithin a|Ld for/the Second 'District of the State of Tlli|lois: 

Present — the HOII. FRED Gf V/OLFE, Presiding Justice ,/'' 


FR.\IKLIIT R. DOVE, Justice J' 

JUSTUS /I, JOimsON, Clerk 

^1 1 T,A. 2<^4 

E, J. ,/ELTER, Sherif f^^^^^ ^,,,j,^j^^^^5<^jji,,j!^5^ 

BE IT RSI.'ISMBERED , that afterwards, to-wit; On 
the Opinion of the Court "vvos filed in the Clerk' s Office of 
said Court, in the words ar.d figures following^ viz: 

Qm* Mo. 965i 

'O • XJL • 



ford Oomaty, Illinola, aiM oa ^iMts 21, 1934. H® l@ft gtinriiriBg 
llari® A. i)a:viS9n, Ills wMow, Bmrry 'f®!j®t@S' Krriaoa, a gima^ssa, 
aM B43sa iJavlsom .Barton, & gafaMSa^igfcrfeai?, @hiM-i?»B af a d«<Mia»d4 

iieri® A* S^yisom, t^ wiaow» 1« IIjms aiiXy party ia im%&T®B% 
T^Bi^in^ la the 8tat# of illiaala* Blui £li4 aot ^titiosa 3^r 
Jitters ot AdMinlirtratloa, as4 Gharlas WtHiaaia, Btblis AfeiBls- 
tratoTj, 0f l^sMfoM Cfmnity, wss ii^po-tot«4 to atelniitQi' the ©stat® 
ia th.9 r^MSf 1937* 

A, eltatdom to dissovar assets Qt th<B said estate was issued 
otit of tJto Oomaty 0©iji?t of WoodtoM Cotmtj, ®k tine 34 4ay of 
^i0.y 19I9» |«ir©u«mt to tk® petition filet ^if Gimrl®@ wiXiiaa3ys, as 

■j^ed^ •cm ,a»i^ 


■in ,A ftl*E»:' 

Said ©it&tioa was ssrva^ on Bferi© A. Mvlsoa* A Ise-arins oa tte 
sXtatl^a was had Is tlis Ootmtv Coiupt sf Wo<>4f oM CJ«»«rjt.F, and tim 

aita^tion "ma quashed # Cl-iafles ^IJLlia^raus took m. 9^p<^&l from. tM 
3aia ,5ri«s* to %M Gir«\:ilt ■asijs't of i^^o^foM Gmmty, llliaol^* 

ln-S "-'ario A, Davisea to tars orts* t7»000.0© la Hbspty bonds 
t-9 the ad!ai3ilsft?fitf>r, aM to aeOK>\mt for th® aositsMttlat^d inter- 
est tliereon, frois ^Tuh© ^1, 1954.» t^ tfe© tat« of s«ttl«j?wmt. 
'BilB ©rdey was oois^lied with,, ssad t!io boud® giv^a th® mdaiuls- 
t3?itt@r, A ©©«oad ■QT^&T was isad© 2?@^ulriag: iM^i© a. ^aTl^on to 
tuna ova* to saia adM.ixistPat0r an a dditiaaal #1|O0O#0C) ^©ni,: 
and to accouat for t!ie Interact th«»r«»on, Trora Jiin® 21, 1934.* 
to the dat« of aMittl«s»mt. In »£>iiipli®s6@ wltk t.hl@ oMer, niarie 
A* BaTl^oa as®lgBM a parb af ti^t* distrlbutlir® irit@j:'0St In Wm 
«stat» of Dajiiel W, Davissa, d©8®sys!®d, to %fm admiai^ti-ator. 

Aftar than© two or^aya w#r© aignait,, tfee di^euit -Ootirt of 
Wo^toT^ CoflUBity, Illiaoia, autara^ iwioth(©r or4«sr oa I^aamfeap 3, 
lf4©, la bM by ^im mii. Oomrt a4jtt%a4 m& aaaraafi that tfea 
said SMrla® \flliia®®, Mudai stfator aa afe^asai^, &ava and ra-^ 
aairaip nisthiaa foytltas* frtm %h® said l^ria A. S«¥iaofl» It 1® 
fr.:»i 'fch.ia 0r#ai» that Ohaplaa v?i^,.lim?iSj, afeialatj^t®^ of aaid 
#»tata» Jiaa appaal^d to t!ii» Omirt* 

^ha appalXaa, ija ^0r Isriaf ,. ooat#n.€a,*'a© aaaaptaiiad 1^ 
til® appallamt of tfie as«»ta ais^oTarsH im toll ec»pXiaBe® with. 
tim %xssn-<fmt QT&^HB wa® tmm^ hj tha a©^srt t# tj® 'ftill aa«opa 
em^A satiafaatioa af tha laaua of diaeovai^ siM opatatas aja sm 


©stoppel and iKiy fee treat oS hj this oourt as a r®l©eu»e of errors." 

',"e agrso -^ith the ?3^p«llii« tlmt a® a general rule a release Qf 
errors Is to b© pl^^a;^^ ia a Court of Bmti<smi hovirares?, TJthere tije 
pay*!i£9r,t <xf Jioii#y t© plaintiff in «rror, appalla^it h^risin, and 
its aocsptaaee Ijy lii® sap© isliowii upcta tJa© ffii©© of the r««c:KPd aiifi 
attention is aallsd to it bj th© app©ll©a in ikis brief and argtj- 
m®nt, it is as sio^rlj pr««^st#d to thia ootirt as ^otild b© don© 
by fiiinr-!; a ploii Di* raleasQ t>r s*.?r-'>r b . Xn tixs? prss«nt ea»e, 
b^m&vm^f vm 40 >i9t fo#li0T® titat th© aeaaptauss of tM isoats arid 
isoaej t«iti*r04 by IM^im A, Bavlaon *o tii® a4miiiistra.t<jr, 0lioal4 
bar tfe© appellant fro^a a l\it\ir« re«ov«a7» 1*h@re was aot a final 
disp©8iti@a ©f t^e e-ai^, '&tit tii«t Coisrt r@taia@a Jurisdistian to 
siak0 furt&sr or4era* ' 

itoB appallistat ©ont^Mm that tJa® Ocmrt era?M ia not Q3?d«ir- 
iaig til® app©il#® to t\ira oT®r adSitioaal boads to %M aimiaia* 
trator. It ia th©ir aoat«-atioa tMt t&sy toav© traeei »®¥«ral 
tii-rmseuid tollars worth, of l?oad® int© tJie ppssession ©/ the 
app©ll(i^, iSsri© A.4, Dsvisoai ttet after tli®r ^^ tra«©d ti3;®a« 
bd-aa« to the poM&m»&ia^n @f )feri# A» IMtIsoe, tfe® barfiea tima 
iB^tte to tlx© dtefaafeiit, am^ sh# iiust «3^1aixA wMt ii^s b@oof!»a 
of %h® 1son4e, or turn %hmm orer t<5 tk® adRiiiiietrssitor, Tim 
ap|»®llaat lies oitad t&r^# e^B^a as S'-iJi-teliiiiig this oontexitica. 
"^e first im -Iratt ts» Walker, 44 Xll.ji at Bag© 4^5» S'Ma is & 
case la i^idfe mm^ of th# li#ira ^r Al©:s®M©r Alyatt attespt^d to 
set asid® find vaaat« ^mt&Tm. d®®4® of donTsjaa$« ^liioli .dsxander 
.%att «3C99itt0d iaiid sl0llv#r«d t^ th© otlssr h@irfi, l?h© oostsntioa 
9f t&0 plaintiffs was tliat .AJL8»3cand®r l^ljnatt was lBiiaa@ ®t tlte 
time he axeoutod th® d#©d, T!i® Cotirt tlj®re hmXd that after an 

t4 Jlife^JMMC^ »*i \-' '^ 

'k ■• 

i>i,fisil>''ri J . 

inKtmmeiit £iad tmtm. oaraontod, it ia 'bln41ae imtH tlio inQontp^t* 
®nQj of thQ grim'fcor is establisliedj ana %hm paroof Qf that faet, 
deiralv»s upon th® party contest iii^g ita blading for«©, 

^0 Eoxt «as© cltsi l3 Tlartfsrd Lit© I'ne# Oo* ¥• Gray 
©t al,, 00 111,, Bai^ 2#4. Thifi 0^0© 1ji'*o1v«s tiia is®a^ltt®n©®s 
of @ sigpiatur© to an applleatioji for iBsux-ane®* Tk© CSoiart oa 
p^© 31, useo tMs languages "'^e sr® of opinion, whan tli® 
g®auia0Ji»s® of a slgjanttir© to an liiistif^jaeiiit l^ ©stablishedl, it 
affords prima f aoi« e^ldiHa©© that the oositasts of %im Instrt^ 
asitt i*ar© kncwm ta tli« mibscriber, and tbat it 1® his aot, atid 
h@ne« that ti3t« burd«3i i® npom these i^ aasert tim oontr&rj, 
to ssik© gQ^J^ proof as shall orerck)®® tlie priiaa faei€? @via©Tio©.» 

la Kitaer vs, ".mitlacfe.,, SS 111,, i'ag® 513t the qiisstloa 
is whether a psjrtser Is ssti^psd to dsrsy the ^ac^exition of a 
liot©. Oaa of the partmers to t&s suit fH®4 a verified pl«ia 
that he did not sl^ th© aoto* ftie Uourt fesld that wimn tiie 
pl«^ of aoa est faetim T@yifi@d W affidsTit im filed, tim 
burden Is tSarmm ttpos %hm plalrattff to makB &vmh proat &.B was 
3reqBir©d at ooois^a l^s? to aatltl© tix® isstruHsst 8m®d <mi to be 
r©ad in cnrtd^aa®, aM wh#jn that is 4ob,@, ti^ 1mM03:5 ©f prsef is 
shifted to tim defendant to mij^eim Ills pl©a before t^ Swey* 
"S&e holding of %^ Omsrt la tlies© eaaas does aot sustain tli© 
acnteatioa of tbM appallaitt tMt th© biird^B of proof ahlfted 
to th® appelle© for her to ^Kplaiit isiiat had beeome of the bauds • 

'^m oaiw was tri®d bef@r® tlie Gotirt ^tliout a jury. "Ebie 
Judge Imd tii« oppdrttmity of h#?»rine th© witnessee as tli©7 
testified, and also obserriag their dexasaiaor aad eonduet upon 


«'i'i*iiS4 ■^■' • ^*^ *• 

the wltaaes utaiid, anS fwom all th.^ facts mi^ oirGim&tar.Qos In 
eviden«w», deoido th<& iaerlts of tfee «caitroT©rsy« H© has hold 
t&at th» pi&iatii!T failed to tra^ tJios© bonds, **ot.lx0r than 

tlie ^.S,000,oo,»* to the poss«asioa of llarlo A, .DaTlaaa. 

iijftcjr raadii;^ tJi« ©vid©a#« «i8 abstraatod^ it is our son* 
«lusioii that tliQ Ooti3ft was ©orroot ia fladiag that tiie appellant 

MA not tnie@4 th« \>mAB Q%b3$ie l^lism li^- i#tO&§#^ %^ tto possess* 
ioa of iMsi& iU i^vis«a» 

^ii© order appealed tsms. is lajsftbj af f ir£iB4# 




SECOND DiSTEiCT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty-. 

Clerh of the Appellate Court 


l^'ORSCII, ) 

Appellant, ) 

-^'' / vs, ) 

^ \ 


Appellee, ) 


cuit Coixrt, 
'/ill County. 

ifOIPE,— P. J. 

Richard L. Thorscli filed a suit in the Circuit Court of iVill 
County against Wllhelmina R. M, Ealey on six piNDmissory notes. Plain- 
tiff »s complaint, alleged tlaat on September 1, 1931, the defendant for 
a good and valuable consideration made and executed 6 promissory notes, 
payable to bearer, ag^regatins the sun of ^)1950,00 due semiannually 
from March 1, 1932, to September 1, 1934, bearing interest at the rate 
of 6> per annum until neturity and at 7;,1 thereafter; that said notes 
were also sijrned by Robert S. ualey, the husband of the defendant; that 
said Robert E. Haley died February 27, 1935; that the plaintiff was the 
legal holder and owner of said notes; that there was due thereon the s-um 

.ecDe .0 

»^ sAb 


. ;t^tsII?9qtiA 

. JiocfoH -^cf bartsls 00 Ib <> 


pf $1950,00 as principal, and accrued interest; that the said notes 
[provide for the allov;ance of attorney's fees, which should be allowed 
the plaintiff; that the plaintiff nade demand upon the defendant for 
the payment of the principal and accrued interest due upon said notes, 
but the said notes r&aain due and unpaid. Plaintiff asks judgment 
tagainst the defendant in the siua of v5000.00. 

The defendant's answer to the plaintiff's complaint, neither 
admitted nor denied the making and the execution of said notes, but 
demanded strict proof of the saiie ; adaltted that her husband, Robert 
S. Haley, died on February 27, 1335; neither adinltted nor denied tliat 
plaintiff vms the legal holder and owner of stdd notes; neither ad- 
taitted nor denied that any provision was nade for the allov/ance of 
attorney's fees; denied that any denand was made on her for the pay- 
ment of said notes. The ansv/or further alleged, that in the year 
1956 in a certain foreclosure suit then pending in the Circuit Court 
of will County entitled: "Chicago Title & Trust Company, Trustee v. 
Wilhelaina R, M. Haley, et al. No. 39233," that after the filing of 
the bill aiid answer, at the solicitation of the said plaintiff, de- 
fendant agreed to assign the rents and to execute a deed of the property 
foreclosed upon to the plaintiff for the consideration, that thereafter 
no judgmait of any kind would be entered against said defendant on said 
mortgage notes or othex^jise; that in conform ty with siich verbal agree- 
ment said deed and assif^nment of rents were executed and delivered to 


■■;'--:>-^ , v'WaruB ©rT? .aecton M^J' . 

^ 9wena Ijob XI ^ 
teat^a ifta£) 

-'^ -ion 0||iJri 

3 f>e«f} M.6:. 


Ithe plaintiff, and a vvltten stipulation was thereafter entered into 
lind filed in said cause, wliich vms included in the final decree. Por- 

igraph 14 of said decree being as follov/s: 


"The Coxirt further finds that by stipulation of the 
parties hereto possession of the prenlses Involved herein 
is to be delivered to the plaintiff and an assionnent of 
rent is to be executed by Wllhelmina R. M. Haley to the 
Chicago Title & Trust Cor43any as Trustee, and that no 
personal deficiency decree be entered against the said 
\Vilhcl:nina R. Li. Haley, defendant therein. In case said 
premises is sold at the Master' s Sale for a sura not 
sufficient to pay the axaount found due to the plaintiff 
in this decree," Tlie decree fiu-'ther provided, "but no 
personal deficiency judipnont or decree bo entered against 
Viiilhelralna R. M. Haley in any event." 

The answer further alleged that the defendant carried out 
|Lnd performed her said agreement and executed her said deed to said 
aortgaged property; that all matters of indebtedness of every kind or 
jharacter were settled, adjudicated, and paid, including this cause of 
lotion sued on; that the same was satisfied and paid by the giving of 
3aid assignment of rent and said deed by said defendant; that it was 
thereby in said consent decree stipulated that no Judgment was to be 
hereafter rendered against Wllhelmina R. M. Haley in any event; that 
said cause of action sued on in this sijit was paid and satisfied, and 
thereby released and discharged of record. 

The plaintiff filed a v/rltten notion to strike the answer of 
the defendant as being insufficient in law, and ?rholly iioiaaterial to 
the cause of action, as stated in plaintiff's complaint. This motion 
ms overruled by the Court. The plaintiff filed an ansv/er to the 

::BW rfoif*?.', oat/so i)2«3 ri; t'9 .['... 

;''-0;^b Mat .i(2fl*3; 


od od' ex 

axij , ci oJ oi Ei &n9n 

.. ,v 

% . . r _^ ..; P r • T 

anoo £>!«* nl yfi^te 




afflririative defense set forth In. the defendant's answer, and denied 
that there ?/as any stipulation, or agreement between the plaintiff 
and the defendant, whereby his notes were agreed to be cancelled and 
surrendered, and denied that he was a party to the litigation In tho 
Buit between tiie Chicago Title Ic Trust Company and Wilhelmina R. M, 
Haley in the foreclosure proceeding, and denied that the indebtedness 
oetwoen the plaintiff and tho defendant had been settled, or adjudicated. 
The case was tried befoi-e the Court v.-ithout a jury. Tho issues 
(fere found in favor of the defendant, and jud^ient was entered accordii?.g- 
Ly. It is frori this judgment that the appeal Is prosecuted to tMs Court. 
I Prom the pleading ana evidence, it will be noted that the de- 
fense to this cause of action is, that the agreement in the former fore- 
slosure proceeding provided that both the first and second mortgage notes 
should be cencolled, and tliat a decree was entered to that effect. The 
testi:nony is in conflict as to #iat was said and done at the various 
hearings between the attorneys for the Chicago Title & Trust Coznpany and 
iJr. Tiiorsch, the appellant, and with Mrs. Haley and her attorneys. From 
bhe evidence, there seems to be no doubt tiiat lirs. lialey, at tho time 
the settl^aent was nade, thoro-U£:hly believed that the second mortgage 
10 tee of 1^1500*00 were incliided in the aettlenent. The appellee's brief 
La devoted almost entirely to the fraud tliat the attorneys and l!r. Thorsch 
perpetrated upon Mrs. Haley by not including these vlSOO.OO notes in the 
rinal decree in the foreclosure proceeding. Tho defense of fraud is not 

iij^ ii4)oyi\f 

.i.'HC'i.?;. : 


.; ariooa siexlcf ,oon8Mvo 
J. iJ5*jt;i.ox.:j." onow 00#ODdX<i^ lo aa 

•alsed by the pleadings, and is not available to the appellee, as a 
lefense in this procoedlng. Fraud is not a conclusion ox" law, txxt it 
.8 Incunbent npon a party clmrging fraud to state Tacts In their pload- 
^jig relied upon as constituting fraud and a general charge that a party 
Icting fraudulently, or was guilty of fraud, is a statement of a con- 
ilusion and is not good pleading, unless facts are averred on vmich 
}he charge is based, (People vs. Board of Appeals 367 111. 559.) The 
^swer of the defendant, iVilhelmina R. M. Haley, sets forth facts which 

ihe claimed, paid, satisfied, released and dlsclaarged the notes. The 


fturden of proving these facts was upon her. Kuhnen — Siegrist Kardvmre 

llompany vs. John Papista 267 111. App. 581. An examination of the 
i'ecord discloses tiaat the appellant, Richard L. Thorsch, was not a 
|>arty to the proceedlrjs in which the first mortgage was foreclosed, 
^therefore the stipulation entered into between the parties In tliat 
)rocoeding does not prevent him frora suing on the notes in question. 
The Judgnont of the Trial Co^^rt is reversed and the cause 

Reversed and Cause Reraanded. 



^W MtWdL ^«>i'«rf "^C*^^^^ i^^- 

, ;iiJ.l.'0::jO(nq elrfif nl ©ane 
- " ■ " bi< 

,5objaMS);i ©a;- 



so. 9640 




Appellant. ) 


Appellee brought suit against appellant before a Justice 
Of the peaoe and recovered a Judgment for #100.00. Upon appeal by 
appellant to the Circuit Court, a Jury mbs waived and the cause heard 
by the oourt resulting in a Judgment in favor of appellee, the 
plaintiff below, for '^73.00 and the defendant brings the record to 
this oourt for review. 

The evidence disclosed that appellant ovfned a farra and 
considerable personal property thereon and in 1938 the parties hereto 

.t ■f.^ftli.. 

\. / 



^ trie 


.'; X'i 

>- O' -'^ , ^\ I ^ ^Ht.^^, ^>^-,.^0Q^- 


" '' ■■ «..,._ \ 

a-rv ;>e?*:^; 



.1. ,3\ 

-'^ s;' Aid esIXeqqA 

i/ri_:3xi ^ai. ,.m; h&v ^t JnusIXsq 

Ouo^ion ssi^nei 9ff:t S^.Ql nt bap no«nmii x^nsqonq Iftnoe-xsq aldi&ioblaa 

entered Into an oral agreement by tVie provisions of which appellant 
vas to furnish everything except labor and they wero to share in the 
profits or losses on the basis oi one-fifth to appellee and Xour- 
fiftha to appellant. They a-^jreed to take and did take an Inventory 
of all the property when appellee went on tho fnrn and when ho left. 
The values at the time the relation began, Tvhich was March 1, 193S, 
were agreed upon, and when the relation terminated, January 1, 1940, 
the only dispute was as to the value oi certain articles in the 
Inventory. Appellant claimed that accor;din', to Ihe values placed > 
on these articles b-,- tho oarciaa horoto, ho .and ai;palJ.ant xi&re unable 
to artrea upon tho value of the hay or of a :ull an^i contandod that 
according to the true value of these, appellant owed him $173,78, 

Appellant insisted before tho justice of tho neaco and in 
the circuit court that the suit was between joint adventurers for an 
accountln;];, not wlt'nin the Jurisdiction of a justice of tho peace, 
and that consequently tho circuit court vrns likowiaa without juris- 
diction of the appeal. Want of jurisdiction il tho suit v/as of the 
character clairaed is not disputed, 

Questions as to the particular relationship created by a 
contr^iCt to iarm on shares ava difficult to docldo. Much depends 
upon the torma oi the specific contract involved, fhe general rule 
is that tho cjuostion whether the relation o.f the uai'ties I3 that of 
landlord and tenant, landlord and cropper, imrticlpants in a comrnon 
venture, or some otiior relationship must turn upon the actual intention 
of the parties as j^athored from tho entire contract, the lanr;ua-^e in 
which it is cast, and the circumstances surroundin,f; its execut'on. 
If the import of tho agreement is doubtl il, tho actions of the parties 
to it may -urnish a sutisfaotory .jalde for its interpretation, Sono 
courts have said that this class of contracts partakes of the nature 


r^- ..f Brief ^ 

■'irfw fcn- 

,r-aX vv-^ J^"~\V^ aK w^vJ^-*^* ^>*»^(^^ jjiii^ai^ ,^ i:"<*.sj;:^ii>^ Jhjru^ 


rr« fyro Ibr 


of "an adventure" which entitles the person taking the farr^i to partlclpa 
tion in the profits derived therefroni, (15 Ara, Jur. Crops, 238, aoc. 

48.) Babcock v, Kat2, 121 Ore. 64, 253 Pac. 373, cited by appellant, 
is of that class of cases. 

The ordinary contract to farm on shares lacks two of the 
essential elements of a partnership, — namely, that the parties are 
•mutually principals of and agents lor each other, and that the business 
l3 conducted on a joint account. (15 Am, Jur. supra, soc. 50), 

Reported cases are of scant benefit In deternlning the quest! or 
whether the parties to a contract sustain the relation of joint ad- 
venturers or employer and employee, since in the final analysis the 
facts of each case must determine the (juestlon. An agreement by the 
owner of an establlshod business, ov the promoters of an enterprise 
to give one employed to render services In connection therewith a 
share of the net profits in lieu of, or in addition to, a stated salary 
does not of itself convert the relation of enployer and employee into 
that of joint adventurers; but if the person rendering the service is 
himself the promoter or an orl;jinal party to the enterprise, he has 
usually men held to have an interest therein as joint adventurer 
with the others, and especially so l.i he hlra::eli contributes capital 
to the enterprise. (33 C, J„ Joint Adventurers, 844, sec. 9.) 

In the Instant case, appellant was the owner of an ostaollshed 
farmlnii; business. Appellee was not a promoter thereof and contrlDuted 
no capital or property thereto. Ho had no ahare In any of the property, 
but T.erely a share in the prol its, 11 any, derived from the operation 
of the I'arm, in consideration of his labor, with a corresponding loss 
if there wore no profits. Appellant was and re::ained the sole owner 
of the property and there wus no agreement that It was to bo divided or 
sold, or that appellee v/as to share in the proceeds ol the property. 

ovbji ni 

no . 

i>4 oubac 
>»t4aQo --■ Jej 

, io a^Oi 


j.lw' lioaaj. 



' P C^ a. ab t^ ^ «JL ''^^ -J A 


This axcludea the case Irom the definition of a Joi-'.t adventure. 

Appellant's contention that h.l3 tost. i^ony and the docket 
entry of the justice of the peace show the sul" was lor an accountinv-i 
l3 equally without merit. The docket entry is that the court finds 
from the evidence there Is due the plaintiff from the defendant the 
aurn of ;|100,00 "in an action of aasumpait ' or wonoy found to bo due 
the Plaintiff frora the Defendant on an accounting between Plaintiff 
and Defendant." Defendant teatli led in the circuit court that at 
the time of the bjsaring before the justice oi the peace there waa an 
accountln.j; oi profits and losses that was taken down on paoer and 
balanced up, and chat the justice did that in arriving; at his Judgment, 
Where the relation of the parties ia simply that oi debtor and creditor, 
and the aT.ount of the debt is certain or a3certa\nablo by sitr.r>le 
calculation, account is not, tho proper remedy, but the clair, should 
be enforced In the or-dlnary forrr.a of acnion according to the nature 
of the demand, as where assumpsit is the proper r^'neciji and the mere 
fact that there ai-e several itena on both sides o: the account, y/nen 
by subtractinc one side fro^ the other a balance is easily ascertain- 
able, will not drive plaintiff from assumpsit to account. (1 c. J. 
Accounts and accounting, 604, sec. 13.) The relation between the 
parties not boin^ a joint adventure, nor a partnership. It resoivos 
Itself into that of employer and employee, and the auit was between 
debtor and croditor. There war, no dispute as to the num:.or or quan- 
tity of the articles inventoried, or as to losses on certain iter-s. 
There w era no l-;enia on both sides of an account within the raeaning 
of that term. The sole issue was as to the value of certain items 
in the inventory. The so-called accounting was r^erely a calculation 
Of the a:nount due appolloe. Appellant testified that he and Koester 
agreed upon the value of the bull at 445.00 when Koester left the 
farm, Koester denied this, and his witnesses fixed tho valus of the 


-i eebt'Ioxe el 


MP beonal 

-O.TB »rJ. 

booiolr» ' 

-rob s:. 


-It ?on IIIw ,91 
te;} iJfi' 


bull at |75.00 and the hay In the barn at ;|;I0.00 per ton, and 
in the stack at $8.00 per ton. Other wltnoasoa fixed the value of the 
hay at ^7,00 or |l8,00 per ton and appellant testified that th© markst 
value of the hay at the time appellee left, was $6,00 par ton. 

In our opinion, the j atic© of the peace had jurisdiction of 
tho action and the amount found due Jn the circuit court la sustained 
by the testimony. I'll© judsment oi tha circuit court la, therefore, 

Judjment affirmed. 

i &>f't p- 


O0,aJl f: 

it bf^m 00, 3V^ -JO JX 
4 10 00 .Vl d.- 



iiT,«r 311I.A. 296 

I SECOND "^pfTlficT 

.^-'--^^llay T«m, A. /, 1941 





It. ) 

DOVi-. I J« 

Appellee r-ecovarod a Jud,3rai0nt for ;i;4399,59 in the circuit 
court of Will County in an action af^ainat the ilrst Matlonal rianl: of 
Loclrport for conversion of fivo notoa, sscurod by a trust deed alleged 
to hav® boan deposited with the bank for collection. The suit was 
Instituted on Novemtoer 10, 1933 and after the i8suo« Imd been mad^ up, 
they weio subraittod to a jury, resulting In a- verdict Xor th» i^laintlfj 
upon which judamont waa 2;*ondor©d, and th© bank appeals » 

■i.;' r 



Th© record discloses timt on May 9, 1026, Li«3a F, L&kin^ 
exocuted a trust d©ed for 1,-11,000.00, on farm land, to Carl !!, 
JSuohlonpfordfc, truotsd, to socuro paTment- of twonty-two notisa of 
|500,00 each, boarlns alx psr cent Interna u, payable a etal -annually, 
duo in live yoara. The bank's trust oi ficer tostlfiod th© loan was 
Bot nad© by th« bank and waa not carriad In Ita portfolio. Appellee 
lived on a farm alx miles northeast of Lockport, Sh© did her banking 
buslneaa in Leisont. She tosblflocl that on a ; or one on in May, 1928 aho 
went to appellant bank to aak® a deposit of #-1,000,00 on interostj 
that sho there met C&rl H, f&jahlsnpfordt, president of tho bank and froa 
blm purchased ".wo of th© notes on Muehlsnpfordt'a statsment that they 
wn^id bring a larger return and that ahe could have her money back any 
-.3 3he wanted It, Later in :ho day sha withdrew #1500.00 from the 
Lemon t bank and purciia^jed three .nore of the notes. Sh© received her 
•enii-arinual Interest regularly thereafter until ^.he last payment to hor 
an November 23, 1052. 

A atenogr&pher for appellant testified thafc on April 27, 
1931, she prepared and saa! led a letter aijned irj Muehlenpfordt as presl- 
aent of the bank, directed to appellee at Leaont, as rollcvaj 

''You are holding trust deed notes of Guv c. Lak'n 
f»ad Llda Lakln, upon which we are dsnandin- oa-rnsnt. 
unless these notes are paid we will start foreclosure 
proceedin-s and force paymnt. Kindly bria^ In your 
notes £ind we i*lll .;;iv® you our receipt until t,he notes 
ai-e paid." 

^«v ,'^° days afterward, April 29, 1931, appellee left her notes at t^ 
aank and received a z^ecolpt rcadingi 

"Keceivod from Mrs. tU Janlsco Notes Ho. 12, 13, 

!■§, 17 ami 13 airrned by Guy C. Lnkln and Llda Lakin 
for collection. 


irat Rational Batilc, Lockport, IXlinoia 

C» H. Muehlonpfoi'dt, 



o?5clQ£jjb btooen exfl' 






3 •XOl 

Appellee taatii'led ah© novor reoo.ived. the letter; that 
ah® got hor nail on a Lockport rural rout© through a Lockport mall 
carrier and had nevar received any mall out of Lemont; that she cane 
In w'th the intention of receiving her money, bocauso Mr. Muehlanpfordt 
had told hor she could havo it any time, and the reason 3h« carne was 
that sh9 wanted to buy a home; that when s-he delivered th© notes to 
Sluehlonpfordt she asked for hor noney and v/as riven t;h0 receipt; that 
she went back about a month later and tried to ;|:;ett her t^ionej^j and 
that evory tlmo she wont thoro for IntortJat she deir^ndad her siono^?-; 
that she always v/ent of hor own accord hecause she v,'ante,'l to buy a 
borne and wanted to draw the noney and that hor son Ben Janisco was 
»ith her on ovory occasion v/hen she -i^ent to the bank. 

Foreclosure had boen started on Februaiy IS, 1931, by 
Kuehlenpfordt aa trustoo, and by Leo P. Ward,, iisaiatant c&shler of 
Iho bank, raore than tv,'o months before the above mentioned letter waa 
aailGd. Thla complaint for foreclosure v?a3 sworn to by Ward and allo^rred 
fch&t he was t,he lo^jal holder of all the principal notes and interest 
Boupona secured by the truat deed, Tha proceed! n^; proceodod to a 
Secroe and on Jun.® 12, 1931 the Eiort3a,sod pramlses were sold under that 
aecroe, for tho full atiount of the debt, intorost and coats, and a 
Baater's certificate of s.-le was duly Issued to Muehlenpfordt as purchas< 
le CQEBGitted suicide on April 22, 1933. (Trustoos of .Schools v, American 
Surety Co. 307 111* App, 398 at Pa :e 401.) Thereaiter, on iv^ay 15 
lose, in pursuance of a petition p^^ovloualy fiiod, an ord@r v/aa 
Ihterod In tho forsclosure proceeding, finding that Muohlenpfordt In 
fact purchasad the prop©rty on behalf of Matt Janisco, and other namod 
aoteholdera in certain proportions, .he proportion of Matt Janisco 
twins 5/22 thereof and the ssastor was ordered to oxacuto and deliver a 



:'■'"> tydG. lOd bio 
^•4nai«r jbfl^ 

■.-' '"^Off ,^* 

13li f.'. t. t 

' Mcsaoo 

jdoed to then In the natn&d proportions. Matt Janlaeo was appellee »s 
ihuaband, lie died on March 24, 1039. Aopolleo was not a party bo th« 
iforyclosure proceeding or served v;ith process thoreln and appelle® 
testified that the -Irst time ahc knew the property %'aa forocloaod was 
when aha received thd last interest on KDvenber 25, 1932; and tliat: aho 
never -ave the bank or any of Its oiricers authority or instructions to 

On May 13, 1959, Albert Kruger, and other holderrj of the 
undivided Interest in the property under the master's deed, filed a 
partition suit, in which appellee and the children of Matt Jnnlsco were 
Bade parties defendant. In that suit a decree was entered finding the 
pendency of the instant ault, and that appellee dlaclaimod, for herself 
find the children, any ri,-ht, title or interest in th.^ real a.^^tate, and 
orderin: the procooda of the 5/22/to be deposited with the county 
treasurer. The premises sold .or vIi,SO0.O0 in uhe partition proceeding. 
Ippollee has never received any part of the principal of bar nooea or 
iny interest since Koveraber 23, 1932. 

Sen Janiaco, aon of appellee, corroborated his mother's 
lestimonj in every ssse-ntlal particular. In addition, ho testified that 
>n several occasions arter the no;:.©a were left at the bank appellee 
lenmnded her money, and each time Muehlenpfordt would toll her things 
mre pretty tou."h and she would have to wait. On account of the death 
^ Muehlenpfordt, objections to the testimony of appellee aa to her 
^onarersations with him v/ero s\xsta: ned, 

A. P. Dailey, president of the h&iHc at the tlm© of the trial 
©stified that in the usial and customary way of doin:^ business. If 
he bank received a note for collection, they collected the face value 
lua interest or returned the no.o if -.hoy were unable to collect it| 
nd that if thora were any other Inatructions the custom of the bank was 



ifio «ii 

'•i»W i&'Xi^iJJ 11 iJi«'- 

3 noue the Instructlona on the receipt. Ro toatlfled on cross- 
lamLnation that the notas in controversy wero loit ior forjcloaure, 
9 further toatlfioi he was not prsaent when the receipt was given and 
le words "for collection" were now explaineu to hln In the presence of 
ppellea. Appellant's counsel promised to connect up the testimony, but 
Id not do ao. The teatimony shows that alter the noi-os were left at 
:x@ bank, it p&id her the interest rerularly ufit3.1 the last payment 
r interest on Kovember 23, 1932, 

?he court refused to ^^iva an instruction offered by appellants 
nat if the Jus-y believed from a preponderance of the evidence that 
ao letter dated April 27, 1931, was walled to the plaintlfi bv the 
Bfendant, properly stamped and addressed, it is to be presumed that 
t \'>&ti received by the plaintiff unless such prasunpfclon is overcome 
Y proof Lhat it was not in fact received by plaintlfi, and that her 
enial of its receipt was noo sufficient to overcone the presujnptlon, 
ut must be considered with all the other evidence in the case, and that 
t was proper for the j iry to consider othtsr evidence oifered by her 
tiat she did in fact deposit the notes on April 29, 1931, The court / 
efused t>ie Instruction beoauso It was not ofiore^ uatil the other 
natructions were h&itX:Z road no the Jury. Re;:ardleaa of tlie reason 
Ssi;;nad by the court, or any other reason, the Instruction was based 
h the asau^aption that a Latter properly addressed and mailed la 
Iresumod to have 'oqqh received. ?hera is no nostimony in the record 
hat would justily any asaumptlon that the lottor was properly addressed, 
ut on tho contrary, the testimony shows without contradiction ':hat it 
as not properly addrs'ased. The court did not err in rofiisin^ to -'ive 
his instruction. 

The clalta that tho court erred in adraifctln;- the teati:Tony of 
ppellee's son aa :o conversations between her and Muehlonpfordt Is 
qually vfithout n;erit. TViere is no testimony to show he had any interest 

l&al Qiii Bcor 

rmfl flo Jaoie; 

rlt^qcnC; ^ina 



Ln fcho notes or the interest fchoreon, or that he took any part in the 
jonveraatlona. His testimony as a whole, shows that tho exproaalons: 
'We did our banking businoss In Lemont", and "We ?,rent to :et o\;r 
Lnterost" were merely colloquial, not Intended to con'/ey tho Iriaa 
aiat ho had any interest in the notes or interest thereon. He re- 
>e todly iTientioned tho transactions as bolng those of hijj mother, 
md her testimony ahowa the notoa and interest belon-^ed exclusively 
:o her. 

Tho claim that the verdict is oxcesaivo was not mentioned 
.n tho motion lor a new trial, which aot out th© specif le grounds 
wiled upon, Tho ar;;;-amont that the aaal -nmont of error that the 
«»rdict l3 excaaslvo should be considered under the ground that "the 
rerdlct la not 3;:ipported by tho evidoace" nentionod In the motion lor 
I new trial la untenable. The -round mentioned in the niotlon would 
iOvox- the TSfei.:,ht ol the ovidenco, as dependent upon the credibility 
if the witnesses, or the want of testimony upon a matsrial issue, and 
AS no specific rolavancy to excessivoness of the verdict. The deaijn 
f the statute is to prjsvent blanket notions and require, as it does, 
pecific srounda, so that the court and opposln,; counsel nay be advised 
f v,'hat 13 claimed. It la well astabliahed that where a party liled 
written motion for a new trial, he will be held to v;alve all cauaea "^ 
lereior not aet lorth in his written notion. (Lorette v. Director 
meral, 500 111. 348.) The rule is applied to a failure to clalra the 
•rdict is exceaslve. (Wolfgtein v, Illinoia Power and Li :ht Corporation, 
i4 111. App. 362,) The aasicninsnt that the verdict is oxcessfcve is not 
'operly oefor© ua and cannot be considered, 

, The toatirsony oi appellee and her son shows the notes were 

ft with the barJc for collection and not for lorecloaure. Ihe Jury 

nolSttBta vXft»J 



( .sac ,qqA •IIJ 

vidently consiaered the testimony of Dalley, viho atl-altted he was not 
iroaent wlien the receipt waa -iven, was of no probative force. ITio jury 
era the judges of the facts as to whether the notes w«sra left tor 
ollQctlon, and as to wliether appollee recelvod the lo ttor of April 
!7, 1931. Appellee was never Informed of th© for--clo3urQ which was 
►end-lag whon she loft her notes and whon the lotter purports to have 
leen written, nor until about a year and a half afterward. She was not 
lad© a party to the f or'-^'Closure, and the bank c^jntlnuod to pay interest 
,0 hor until November 25, 1932. Accordln;.: to hsr teatlnony *ind that of 

wr 3on, fihe -as put off rrorn tl-ne to tlwB In the collection ol the 


irlncipal* Her son testified that ;ifhen the rece.tpt for the notea was 

flvQn his mother by Mr. l^^aQhlonpfordt, in the president's of. flee at 

)t.» bank, h^ Muohlenpfordt, told hers "I can't -'ive you the money now. 

ftiln.^s are protty tnu -h, , You vv'lll have to wait," but that sho could 

jet hor interest any time and in the nioantlno h© nii,:ht .get the money, 

3Ut interest waa still payable, Eo fuvther testified that a f©w weeks 

lator appelleo s^aln daaandod her money, and was ar^aln put of:f'} and 

5hat not ioa^. aftonvard, when she a.-ain ask«d i or hor money, Muehlenpforc 

iRc' the same story and told hers *Thln;-3 were pvetty tou^h. Can't make 

Lt novv, Wait awhile. IV/o waeks or ten d^ya," 

The testimony Is auiflcient to justify a finding of convoralon. 

iTe find no reversible error in the record and the judsinsnt is, therefore, 


Judgraent affir.iried.. 


:>!£»'; &w'i£ ^"iOi lo: 

r J 

NO. 9670 

lARLE^ H, AL3ERS, RocjrlVor 
tizftia State Baok^^^r Mant^o, 

/ Appellee, 

ift.'^m Overby, 

r'T. Shreffler, 


CIRCUP" CO-JR|^ 0^^ 


fii J «J 9 

On July 9, 1940 a judgment by confeaalon in favo?' of appellee 
1 a -ainat appellant for |502,77 ?/as rendered in the circuit court of 
ikakee County, baaed on a promissory note theretofore executed to the • 
5lzena State Bank of Manteno by Bloyd M, Overby and appellant, 3am T. 
pefflor. Thereafter appellant filed his motion to open up this judgment 
\ for leave to plead, and from an order denying the same, appellant has 
elected this appeal. 

Appellant's affidavit in support of his motion recites -that the 
tizens State Bank of Manteno ceased doing business in Beceraber, 1951; 
it affiant was a custc^er of the Bank, indebted thereto as principal 


".' JnfilleqqA 

a various noces and other obligations, and also aa surety for other 
eraona and was llabls secondarily by reason of hav;.ng endorsed auto- 
obiio and other paper to the bank, in connection with tho garage 
usineas in which ho was at and prevous to such time enja^ed in the 
llias® of Mantenoj that after tho closing of the bank, the receiver 
btained judgment against him in the circuit court of Kankakee County 
pon various obligations due the oank for wliioh affiant was personally 
jssponsible, and tliat ho paid the judgment, amounting to several thousand 
pilars to the receiver ox' said bank. 

The affidavit further sets out that at the time the bank closed, 
ffiant'a fathar and mother, 0. C. Shreffler and Minnie A, Shrsffler, 
ire also indebted to ths bank and other persons, and In order to secure 
k© payment of said indebtodneas they executed and delivered to the 
iceiver of said bank a trust deed conveying to him certain farm lands, 
iter lost through foreclosure, and a certain garage property in Manteno 
Ich had been tenanted by affiant for several yearaj that tho trust deed 
cured notes of approximately |10, 000,00, a large part of which were helc 
the receiver; that later affiant's parents deeded the garage property 
affiant subject to the trust deed and to a prior mortsa;je of tl,000«00i 
ither of which was aaaumed by him, and that he later conveyed the garagt 
ope ty to the deputy receiver for the use and benefit or the encumbrance 
»t the amenta of the bank receiver solicited hiia to re-purchaae the 
Pftge property for $8,500.00 and he finally agi'eed to pay $7,750,00 for 
^ provided he would receive a conveyance of the property, the dlacharge 
the mortgagea thereon and the ccsnplete satiafact: on of all indebtedness 
0, G. Shreffler and Minnie A. Shreffler, as well as a satisfaction of 
> Indebtednoaa of Elwyne 0, Shreffler, his brother, who was liable as 
ilgnar on sane of cheir paper to the bank, and a complete release of 
. of affiant's reaiatinlng liability, contingent or othex'wise, to the 
tkj that on October 2, 1936, the circuit court entered an order in that 








:}oai boa *isrltf£ 






. u(ie£j eric? - 


^la lo e8©nb»;tdob.i' 
rdcfo^oO no ^Bt. 



ftuse on t.he petition of the receiver, which order authorized the 
sputy receiver to accept his proportionate part of the |7750.00 
4 full compromise and aatlafactlon of the debta of Minnie A., 0, C. 
ad ElYfyno 0. Shreffler to the bank, aggresatlng f 9931. 17, principal 
id interest, and directing the receiver to convey the -parage property 
i Sam T. ShrefJler and to surrender all evidence of indebtedness of 
?pellant, Sam T, Shreffler and of Minnie A, Shroff ler, 0, C. Shrefflor 
Id Elwyne 0, Shrefflorj that relying upon such order he paid the 
i'^O.OO and accepted a conveyance of the property, a roleaa© of the 
irtgSLQ® and a satisfaction of any and all debta of himself and his 
ither, nother and brother to the bank; that he liad been associated 
Lth Floyd M. Overby, a friend who was in financial cUfficultios and 
10 asked affiant to sign h;,s note aa an accosuaodationj that affiant 
. .;d the note shortly prior to the cloalng of the bank; and that 
rerby la insolvent and is in the penitentiary. The affidavit further 
iatas that it waa to avoid any contingent or other liability 3uch as 
lis that affiant made it a condition of hie negotiations with the deputy 

ver that all evidences of indebtedness against him should be 
trrendered by the recoivsr on the closin,- of the deal for the garage 

Attached to appellant's affidavit are copies of the petition 
td order therein referred to. Tlie receiver's petition recltaa the 
Kiebtedness of appellant's parents and brother to the bank, the death 
' 0. C, Shreffler, leaving no esta e, and the insolvency of Minnie A. 
A Elwyne 0, Shrefflar, It seta out the acquiring of the parage prop- 
'ty by appellant without assuming any encumbrance thereon, his con- 
yance to the deputy receiver, and his of far to ropurchaae it at 
VfSO.OO; that the City National Sank of Manteno was to receive $1429.17 
^ereof aa holder of the #1000.00 mortgase; that the petitioner receiver 
a to receive $4740.62, "and the City National Bank of Kankakee the 


jiao-iqmoo Liu 
vuvii');i jj i;;jyi^o30« una 00«0 

tnfilleqqfl vr: 

h neb- r.:i ; :, .. 

_ -■_;,_-., sjQ loo 

pproximatQ sura of |1,580.81 for the purpose of roaucing the debt of 
h© 3ald Samuel T, Shreffler to thora," itie petition praya for an order 
uthoriaing the acoep^.anco of |4740,62 in comprotaiae and satisfaction 
f the debt of Minnie A», Elwjna O, and 0. c, Shreffler in the total 
Mount of $9931»17, and that upon rocaipt ol tho same, the receive^r be 
ranted parmlasion to cause reconvoyanc© of the premises, "and that 

be further granted leave to surrender all evidence of indebtedness now 
ad against Samuel ?» Shreffler, Minnie A. Shreffler, Elwyne 0, shreffle 
^d 0, C, Shreffler*" Hie order lollows the prayer of the petition in 
aec verba. 

One of the clalraa of appellee is that under tho doctrine of 
juadeni generis the only evidences of indabtedneaa "^hich ^arer© ordered 
krrendered were those affecting the title to the property. Appellant »s 
ffidavlt diacloaoa that he did not aaatime the obligation of the trust 
»ed or the prior mertgase. It shows he had paid the judii^ment the 
Bcoiver had procured against him on obligations -"or which he waa 
eraonally reaponsible. The words "for tho purpose of reducing the 
Bbt of the aaid Samuiil T. Shreffler to shem" In the recoiver'a petition 
iridently refer to a debt of appellant to the City national Bank of 
inkakee. At the time t- e order waa entered appellant waa obligated 
:iQ Cltlzena Stale Bank of Ji&nteno on the Overby note* So far aa 
36 record shows, that v9as his only obligation- to the bank. Appellant's 
Pfidavit atatea that his purpose waa co iree himself from auch obli- 
itiona aa this, and that the trade between him and the deputy receiver 
IS conditioned upon the aurrender of all evidence of indebtednoaa 
jainat him on the closing of the deal for the garaj'e property. The 
intention that the doctrln© of ejuadem generla applies la without 



\ lO SmJ& 82 


■, .■^ ^> ■. .;-» ■ 

" " 'aB 

■ " " , '1 "'C 

I -51: uix 


5 Hi 

. .;f:3 .f'i;, 

.'\i DSCTi 

^iJv cZi 

liiS, . 



— "- - ■■■' '-'^.." -^X;?!.^ 

• ^ --'? »t0«ltflD eri. 

f:-' .Mr. ?;f rv, 


Section 11 of the Banking act (111. Rev, Stat, 1959, chap. 16|, 
lar, 11) provides that xipon the order of a court of record of the county 
here the hank is located, the receiver may aell or compound all bad 
T doubtful debts, and, on a like order, may sell the real estate and 
eraonal property of such bank on such terms aS the court shall direct. 
ppellee attacks that portion of the order of October 2, 193C, which 
Hthortzed the surrender to appellant of all evidence of his Indebtedness 
the bank, on the ground that the power of the receiver is derived from 
he order and not from the statute? that the court has no authority to 
later an order authoriaing the surr::-nder of assets not specifically 
escribed; and that appellant's claim as to his prior agreement with the 
•celver may be ignored. IJe also clalnis that the court can only sell or 
Ompound bad or doubtful debts, and that there la no showing that appellai 
as insolvent or that the Overby note was bad or doubtful. There are 
Iveral reasons why these contentions are untenable. The authority of 
receiver in this particular Instance was dependent upon the order of 
ae G^i^4vand the court derived its authority from the enabling statute 
ilch authorised the order. The order of the court was primarily to 
4thorlze the sale of the garag© property under the express provision 
r the atatu',.e. The surrender of all evidence of appellant's Indebtednsss 
J the bank was Incidental thereto aa a part of the consideration for the 
lie of the sarase property. The order does not purport to authorize a 
lie or compounding of the Overby note, or to release Overby from 
Lability thereon. Whether appellant was released without Overby 's 
lowledge Is immaterial. If Overby knew of it, that might account for 
le receiver's x-etainlng possession of the no':;e, but it does not militate 
;ainst the effectiveness of the order so far as appellant is concerned. 
' could be released and the debt surrendered as to him without manual 
'livery of the note. The statute expressly authorizea the receiver 
> sell the bank's real estate "on «uch terms as the court shall direct." 


-f>K _",rf 

„..^.^- ■.,...,.;, c.....' ..0 SI&R 9di ©SJ"'"-- 

:<^ "■'-'f ■■••--'rt«6 ©iff- *sJii;4JiBde ;-.-. 

a© court had jurladlction of the subject matter ancl of the terms of the 
iile. The receiver knew the extent of appellant's obligation to the 
ink. If there was any error in falling to deaoribe it specifically 
3 the order, such a circumstance does not go to the jurisdiction of the 
>urt. TVie order was not void and is not subject to collateral attack, 
3aker v. 3rown, 372 111. 336.) When the receiver invoked the juris- 
Lctlon of the court and procured the ex par fee order upon the exact 
jrma prayed for 1^; ]hii8 petition, the error, if any, was of his own 
pocurenent, and he is in no position to question the aufflclency of the 
rder on that account* 

Appellant's affidavit in support of his motion makes out a 
piRia facie case for opening the Judgment. The order of the circuit 
jurt ia reversed and the cause is remanded with dlrectiona to sustain 
le motion so far as it aaks that the judgment be opened, and for auch 
irther proceedinj^s as are not inconsistent with the views herein expreaac 

Reversed and remanded with directions. 


f.^ 1o aoliolbBliul bad i'tuoo 

. t'-jjoooB ;Jari;t no 10 


srf:? rinlfl»q;. ,;c;iiO ©'or': acj 

...* :fi ss ^.bI oe floI:*o; 

■bnemtkt btt& beerrevftH 

GEII. MO. 9528 



MAY TERM, 1941. 

MAURIC'S.. D/J^DER, Achnlnlstrator 

of the ebtate of qeasle^^EVv 

Darner, dec"©«i,sed., land 

EDHA DARI'JER, """-■-.,,! 



NATE COLBY and JpHIlSOW .^IL |. ) 

REFIMING C0mPANY| a Qov%Qi^tlon, ) 
(JolrmBon Oil Refp.nlng Coiiipany, 

a corporation, | j^' 


*^pu?AGE COuHTY, 


■^ / 


HUFi^iAN, J, ... V ■ ■ 

Appellee administrator broisght suit against ivate Colby 
and the Joimson Oil Refining Company, a Corporation, for tiie 
alleged wrongful death of Dessie E, Darner, resxilting from a 
collision of an automobile In which she was riding with a 
truck then being operated by Sate Colby. Coimterclaim was 
filed against appellee admlnia trator and Edna Darner, driver 
of the car in which the deceased was riding, Edna Darner 
filed her covmterclaim against Colby and appellmit conpany. 
Trial resulted In verdicts for appellees against both of the 
defendants below. Judgments were rendered upon the verdicts. 
The appellant, Johnson Oil Refining Company, prosecuted its 
appeal from such judgments, which was before this court at 
its February Terra, 1940. 



Appellant argued two polntis for reversal. The first being, 
that Colby was an Independent contractor, and the relationship 
of master and servant did not exist between Mm and appellant 
iinder their contract. The second point urged, charged that 
Edna Darner waa guilty of contrlbtitory negligence aa to 
bar recovery. 

In support of the first point, appellant relied largely 
on the case of Jones v. Standerfer, 296 111, App. 145, r)ecause 
of the alffiilarity of the contract between appellant and Colby, 
and that involved in Jones v. Standerfer, supra, this coxirt 
held tliat tlis contract between appellant and Colby did not ^^Ive 
rise to the relationship of master and servant, and reversed 
the judgiaients as to the appellant, Johnson Oil Refining CoBipany, 
(Darner v. Colby, 305 111. App. 163, Abst,), On leave to appeal 
being granted by the Supreme Court, the contract v/as held to 
create the relationship of master and servant. Darner v, Colby, 
375 111. 558, 

The cause is now again before this court by virtue of the 
mandate of the Supreme Court, with directions to consider any 
other errors raised by appellant, than the one referred to in 
0"ur formQT opinion. 

Because of the construction glveii to tlie contract by this 
court upon its previous consideration of the case, it was un- 
necessary to refer to the second point urged, so far as the 
appellant, Jolxnson Oil Refining Company, was concerned, and 
Colby prosecuted no appeal, 

Th© fii»8t point urged by appellant for reversal is now 
eliiainated from further consideration. Only the secovid point 
resialns. Appellant, in this respect, charges that Edna Darner 
was the agent and servant of plaintiff's intestate at the time 


tH V ..M .^A .'■'"' ^-'^^'' ..--"^TtaiMU^f .V '-'■•' .- <'o.^>. -^..- .;^ 

T/x 'r.'-e ... "^lX9q!|a it»«l$9Cf iOiS^Jiiop ©ri* *Arif filed 

. ,iXis<iiflo.U =a»^nJilr^^ ..,>-.-..,,.;,- . .-^^...,^^ j «B»d«W!SS<ft ®^ 

......-.-,■..■■■ , iaspsMsstf. '■''■'■•' '<'.^>.-if-.t..:'. ».'. -^ t'-isi'tol^^AXsi ©fid' »d'«©io 

■.-.' r. ,.xvr^v«fr ;>.'/, a^;:; fva •;■; ^ :? ,tjs f r^ri,-^^ ;n fiAtJtfl^ BnO'XTW leti^O 
..v. ..,,.-'. r- -T.- ; -K4rif.6jxte«©6 awolv^^q a;JX aoqi; ^ii;oo 

jbixfi ,-,o,.r, .■ r; V, r,i;-v ,,«r.-f.Tnn ? 'a/.'iftH 110 «o efuloXr tiloaXXaqq* 
w > al I«»^E«Ti?!? ^^ iA«XXei«|ft x^ ^a«' *«-toq ^Bill 9dT 

a©36*t>i..;:j -i;:!-:.^-,--,. ;:■•■. r..'!ji. _ ._ , .^..iXX©qqA •eixta":i«'i 


in quest5.on, and was guilty of such contributory negligence 
as to bar recovery. 

'iikiere the relationship of master and servant is found 
to exist, the action results in a question of fact whether 
the servant was guilty of the nosligonce bringing about the 
injuries complained of, sjid whether tliose claiming for otich 
injuries were guilty of negligence which contributed tiiereto. 
Tliese questions were before the jury upon the trial of the 
case* Both -were decided adversely to appellant's contention. 

Linder the rule applicable herein, the master is identified 
with the servant, and the negligence of the servant becomes 
the neglicrencs of the master. 

After a review of the facts \ipon the questions now imder 
consideration, we are not disposed to dist^irb the verdicts. 

The judgments are tiierefore affirmed. 

Judgments affirmed. 


■ techno 5 R'rfxialXeQf. . -^eieyaje f>&|}i;.o»i) ©ifcw il*;3H .esao 



GEN. NO. 9666 

setT*^ nt 


MAY TERM, 1941. y 


LUCIE GRISE PALAIS,'; ""^--v^ ^^^ 
APPELLANT I F^^'''*^^ 

311I.A. 3 52 




i .# «'^ AP/EAL>fiaM^#l% CIRCUIT 

EBEN B, GOWEH, f'^'' ^^^'^^ ) COURT OP g&I'TK^Sg COUI'JTY. 


This was an action in assiaapslt filed in the Circuit 
Co\irt of Kankakee ccunty, by appellant against appellee. 
The ca-us© was heard by the court without jury, and judgment 
rendered for appellee. The plaintiff below brings this 
appeal • 

It appears that M. H. Adams and Grace, his wife, owned 
a house and lot in the city of Kankakee, in v/iilch they re- 
sided. This property was siibject to a first raort:i;age in the 
sum of |3500. It appears that the sisters of appellant ad- 
vanced money for a second loan on the Adam's property in the 
sum of $1450, which was evidenced by two notes of ^ii650, and 
|800, given to secure a trust deed to C. A. llueller, as 
trustee. The date of the junior mortgage was April 17, 1925. 
Appellant came into the ownership of one of the notes by in- 
heritance from her sister, Phllomene, and of the other note 
by assignment from her other sister. 


'6dBQ ,J}1 .MiiO 

[^ei ,HHST XAM 



.•; ,HAMT?UH 
slsstnip. mP n.'- • ^ asw aJxd' 

aixCd- agfiJEiac} woJ[,«d lllinlJlXq ©ill •©©XXoqqja lol Jb«aef>rten 

• Xj3»<ig;i 
bertwo «e7.1w elci «dOA<xD £>iXB aioaM •£[ vM dtAil^ aiaaqqa ;^I 

dit (« iBtxl A oc^ ,d-ootcfJW» asw 2^i©qoiq alrfT •/ieMa 

-Jb^ ^rn^XIeqqa lo a'xecteie aft* i*«d* ■•i»»q<5f* *I .0055:| 1 

hita ,0@ia^' lo teJBJton ow* x?^ fj«©n®6Xv« wrw xlolriw ,08*X^ I' 
-;:i rii oir:fi enso cfruaXXeqcA 

Appellee became attorney for appellant, vaille acting aa 
such, iie executed the following instrtiraent: 

"I hereby acknowledge receipt from Lucie Grlse, 
individually and as administratrix with tlie will 
annexed of the estate of Philomene Grise, deceased, 
the following notes and deeds of trust given to 
secure tlie paynient of the same; 

M. H. AdaKis and Grace Adams, #650,00, dated 
April 17, 1925. 

M. li. Adams and Grace Adains, |800.00, dated 
April 17, 1925, 

Interest paid to iiovember 17, 1926, 7^. 

Kote of Margaret Williams, |1000.00 dated 
May IS, 1926. 

Kdte of Charles Hack, |1000,00, dated April 
27, 1926. 

I hereby imdertak© and agree that said notes, 
two of which are now involved in the foreclosure 
of the trust deed given to seciire tlie sarne. Yd. 11 
be paid in due coarse. 

I hereby, for good and valuable consideration, 
guarantee the payment of each of said notes and 
agree that the saiae will be collected by me or by 
my heirs and representatives without charge against 
said Lucie Grise. 

Sept. 24th, 1927. 

Eben B. Gower." 

The William's note and the Hack note mentioned in the above 

instrument were paid, and appellant received the proceeds tiiere- 


Appellant in this suit, seeks to recover from appellee 
upon the two notes given by Adanis and ?d.f0, and secured by 
the junior trust deed, by virtue of the above Instrument. 

It appears that Adams was indebted to appellee for legal 
services, and that on Jan. 18, 1926, he took a deed frora Adanis 
and wife for the premises In question, subject to the liens 
of the two prior mortgages. He claims that soon thereafter, 
he advised appellant of this fact and explained to her that 
before he could realize anything by way of compensation foa? 
services rendered to Adams, the property would have to sell 
for more than enough to pay the two prior mortgages. He claims 
that he asked appellant if she would take the deed, and she 



XdfiwlJiv be I 

,?9eX tu.5-.. ,.:;^«;. 

0^li&q.c^ MOffl' -xavoa^ Qt eJiSd* \cfixfB ^sJtrE^'ffi•'tfxIftII^c|qA 
■^if iE^iiXofta J&fiS ^ftllw bad suaafiA. if^ cavig «©rfoc ow;j edit 'rft»^ji 
-x^ejnl erocfii ©rf^f "Sto ijJSHiffc^?' itf ,lSt©i5 ti^tflfif -lolr: 
Xsgieif 101 e©XXd'qqB ocf S©;?ddMi saw emaM ^iKf* B'f8©fi. 

•; l(i«al8MWui 9,cfcJ 'iol e'lhr Iixjii 

dirfcf cxj8XI©q<Ta 6«8Xv6i *fi' 

XXer?' •(•i'zeJbnei "••oiv^dB 

at.iii; r&jd^ «*r'om tdl 

©iTs ':riP ,f?o';: '3../ 93ifl;t ftliicrt* dxfe IJf: d-/t6XXeqqa f)e?laB ©ri tfaW 

replied for Mm to take it. Subsequent to appellee taking 
auch deed, appellant sued Adams for possession of the premises 
by virtue of the conveyance to appellee. Adaras defended the 
suit on the ground that the deed v/as given in the nature of 
a mortgage. Appeal was taken from the decision of the trial 
coTort In tlxat case. Appellee states he then advised her that 
the best way to proceed was by foreclosiire suit, and that it 
would be necessary for her to secure another laviryer to bring 
the suit, as he would be a necessary party thereto. He states 
she authorized him to secxire the services of V, A. Parish to 
bring such foreclosuj?ej that the same was brought, and appellee 
was made a party thereto; that it never came to trial because 
Adams surrendered possession of the premises, and the suit 
which was pending with respect to the right of possession was 
abandoned* ,^. , 

Appellee further testifies that the property at this time 
was in a bad state of repair, and that he offered to £;ivo deed 
therefor to appellant, but that she did not desire same, and 
said for him to carry it until the property was sold. Appellee 
states that he expended money on the property to put it in 
shape for renting; that h© had collected the rents and paid 
the interest and the taxes; that he ims ready and ivilling, 
and at all times had been ready and willing, to convey the 
property to appellant; that he considered the valtie of the 
pr^nises in 1927, to be from six to seven thousand dollars. 
He denies that any consideration passed for the giving of the 
above Instrument to appellant under date of September 24, 1926, 
He claims he received nothing of value therefor, and that 
appellant surrendered no tiling of value by virtue thereof. He 
says that before taking the deed from Adams, he talked the 
matter over witti appellant; that he was convinced a foreclosure 


exi:^ ,l)«£>i:»9li9& amis. 

lo ©'■ . 

otf lis 

1014 "xol J&ellqe'x 
ao til* 1© awSilv Tjd 

^ea ad Mxrow 
•©•ji/aoXas'xo'?; 4oire saJt^rf 


ilr- ■ . , 

e«w r£oX*6«8«o.q Xo ;t4gl'i aci* oj ^ooqae 

♦ Lieraoiansctfl 

^fi^l>,fvX^^ o»t l«>ioTio ad. w^a^ ^a^'-xJ^iiqe'X 1© <M^#^i| bad a nJt afw 

brtfl t«mjB «ilB©Jb doct M& arfs ;}fljl;t ^is6 ^iciBlLeqqs ocJ iol©ieritf 

e©XX<M|q4:. •Moa ««w '^:t«s>qo«jq[ jW£| |liiw i^'-rifto o^ mid lol i)l«a 

J&li|iq,.ttfta a4j^»«t *ildJ,. £>©#fl>©4'I^o.», j^4iiX ©d tfsxj;^ i^^ia^nw: .riol oqaue 

94^ ^#irjcioo o£f ci^XXXlw ^^^ :^^frx pMct Mi|£, 89xr xie 

siio ic si/Xav ©ffct ijQTteJ^iattoo ad taii^f ^«fi3«XX.©<iqjs uj ^j*ia<^iq 


&'£«wjw ft^J-ixv \i<j , ©.i/X#" n©«n«;B ^caXXeqqje 

©lUBoXoaiol « 5©oni:vnoo aaw M d^Add" ;da«XXdqqfl riJlw n«vo nditiaa 


proceeding would be necessary, and considered that the property 
had s-ufficient value to pay the two prior mortgage liens, and 
leave a balance to apply upon the indebtedness from Adams to 
him, ^ 

'Hie appellant was a woman over seventy years of age, and 
had worked in the fairdly of appellee as a domestic for about 
twelve years. She did not possess much education, and could 
read but little Ei;glish. There is no question but that she 
placed implicit confidence in the judgment and Integrity of 
appellee. It appears tiiat the loan to Adams, as represented 
by the two notes in question, was made by the two sisters of 
appellant. She denies that she knew the Adams' xDroperty had 
been conveyed to appellee, or that he had ever offered to deed 
the same to her. She claims that appellee led her to believe 
that the loan was good and the money was safe, and that it 
would b© paid. We do not find in her testimony where she claims 
that any consideration passed for the giving of the Instrument 
in question. 

Appellant urges that the instrum.ent reciting;, a good and 
valuable consideration, thereby imports same. Such only 
establishes a prima facie case. Appellee, by his answer, 
denied any consideration for the instrument, and the court 
heard evidence upon this point. 

Situations such as exist herein, are indeed regrettable. 
Appellee states tlaat appellant was importuning Mm to collect 
the money for her tliat was due upon the second mortgage notes; 
that he tried to quiet her fears by stating that he thought 
she need have no worryj that the property was v;orth the amount 
of indebtedness against it, and that she would receive her 
money. His explanation for giving hor the paper was to passlfy 
her. Be tills as it may, it has resulted in a sharp ^-lisunder- 

:Vs»»9o'«>'?rt ?!>«^ Mrw "!:^^P5«»e>ofyrq 

■■ibfiiilfld 3 ovael 

■ / 
lariit atBoqqa ;tl .©eXIsqqfl 

f^tr^t ^dB t^arfif e»l. 

, cf'~raIIeqqB 

£>©©5'o."t 'ft?!>''r?r 
aTQi. iloqqA ^jifijf awlsXa ^dB «*£»n 

&l imit l»iT» ,®lfla aBw -y^efsofc erf* .5ft« f>oo'3 (b«w rtaol erf^ rfartt 

d-w^irarTiiJs^ .0 SfslvlB ^'^ '^^-'^ 6®aBjaq fiol;*JW:»Msfroo Tjna ^^di 

X^^o datsZ ,emti tt^noqml x^9'mdi ,nol#al9fo2enoa eXdai/XAv 
^'i<m»infi Rid ifcf «©«XX»qqA •©esd sloai amltq t^ aerialXcfArf-a© 

.S:i2oq aiiii ;::{oqi;/ eonebXva ferLcerf 

do9l. . ■/j^*tbqfltl aiiw ijHfilX^qqB ^Ad^t 3©;Jfl*3 eoXXeqqA 

jaed-oA ajiap^J'^ccm hnao0t ibil>i f^tiif eifb kmr SarfJ «s«ii nol ^mwc oii^t 

daxJOB .7 yi?*E«qd*fcx ai^i ;iniii f^rij^jovr on •VBrf bftdn edn 

■^'iJtaa> .nalqxc 

standing between the parties. 

Under the Instjrument aued on, we do not find wherein 
appellant abandoned eaij legal ri.^ihts she had by virtue of 
the notes secured by the second trust deed, or where the 
appellee secured any benefit or advantage. While the motive 
given by appellee for executing the instr-ument is somewhat ^" 
unusual, yet a laotive for a promise will not supply the 
necessary element of consideration. Meixner v. \¥estern 
Livestock Ins. Co., 203 111. App. 523* 

This is an action at law, based upon an Instiniment for 
the giving of wlilch the court found no consideration existed. 
The trial court heard ttie testimony, and we are not disposed 
to disturb the judgment. The Judgment is therefore affirmed. 

Judgment affiiroed. 

^<^^^n/^^ 9. o(SuU.4_.i.oiA^ 


i^arf-woBioa kI ;^nef?yr'rc^arfi ©i^ gal^'-T-t^y^ 'tol e©II©qqA -^cf navijj 
Silt- rlia > iB.^.ffO'T,'- "ivtioxn b :i9z »lflneuffuj 

,^S% *<*«•* ..MT «'. .era 2iooiaevlJ 

beaoqe±5 :t©n «te» fiw £«¥» 4|^0JBtdit«9it «»f1# f3%^&A ^tuoo Xairg:i adT 

Z^^^y^^-^^ X .-VAS^iSL)^ 


GEN, N0« 9671 

AGENDA 110. 18 

MAY TERM, 1941. 

ROLLIN VOnaltS-.,^dr..^vl,ICE | ) 
VOLKKRS, a Mlnor^^y. ROLLIH I L^l 
VOLKERS, his ii6x« fr^n^fug.. ^^T 

appe:mss, T"-k 

CHARLES H|fe,^¥t)LKE^, ET AL., ) 

,Sf^" ) 

"-'~^"'"' APPELLANTS . ) 



Appellees brought suit in the Circuit Court of Stepiien- 
son county for the partition of certain lands of Alma volkera, 
deceased. They also asked for an accounting as betv/een them 
and two of the defendants* However, this matter was settled, 
and did not go to hearing. Appellants filed their motion to 
dismiss the complaint for certain alleged insufficiencies. 
Appellees filed an amended complaint. Appellants made 
answer to tlie araended complaint, which raised no controversy 
as to the interests of the respective parties in the land 
sought to be partitioned. They made no f-urther appearance 
in the matter until after decree and sale, when they objected 
to an s.tto3mey fee for plaintiffs' solicitor. The master 
overruled appellees' objections to the allowance of such fee. 
Exceptions to the master's report were denied by the trial 
court, and the rigiits of the parties fixed and solicitor's 


Of ^f\M f^n^ssrrik LT"*® ♦O' 

•J' /i-Cl.'* J 

^Qi, f iAii'iJi.U!' X 



lA Tsr 

Trr r r .la . ' , .. ,., , "iiViiimn'iTliife 

.•■/•v. i. .3'„-v.'x.L v^ ■ .CIsqqfl fteJJo'^ — -" 

fee granted as found and recommended by th© master. Appell- 
ants bring this appeal from such decree v/ith respect only to 
the allowance of solicitor's fee. 

The original complaint as drawn was far from perfect, 
but we find that the lieirslilp of Alma Volkers, as set out 
therein, is the a&cae as set out in the decree of the court. 
Therefore, it would appear that aside frcsn the many defects 
and other uncertainties of the complaint, it did set out the 
parties in interest together witti tiielr relationship to th© 
deceased. It fxirther appears tliat the complaint as originally 
filed, includes the lands which are made the sxibject of parti- 
tion by the court's decree. However, it did Include real es- 
tate not situated in Illinois, This land was omitted from 
the amended complaint* It is not to be presumed that the 
trial court would have granted partition to siich land. 

Appellants cite many autliorities, as well as the statute 
bearing upon this question. There is no dispute as to the 
rules applicable in proceedings of this character* 'li'henever 
it becomes necessary for defendants to a partition siit to 
employ counsel and defend the s^^it in good faith In order to 
protect their rights or interests in the subject matter, tlien 
a decree apportioning the plaintiffs' costs and solicitor fee 
should not be granted. But here, it does not appear that tlie 
solicitor for the plaintiffs was attempting to act in any 
manner adverse to the interest of the appellants. The fact 
appellants made no appearance in the matter at tlae time of 
taking evidence would indicate that no good or substantial 
def raise existed as to appellees' right to partition, or that 
appellants' interests were not properly set out along witli 
the other heirship of Alma ^/olkers. Frequently, the personal 


g^ .... ,j.t ;,., :.,^,....^ '^fU^txd «-^r'-' 

■fit ;{-iid:' 

.. v.~ ^..ifie eiC- .- ^ ,....- 

-b=. . - - -- V- — -i;^ 

iuv. , . ....^vu....v.. ..... ,.....^ <. .^^.,.. _.. ....:. bfi-JBjLriln io« d:tB;f 

«ii* d^axltf kemim'n *d <** *«» «1 -tl <.icci«Xc[8soo bi^rt&ats ©rid 
^finaX iio*je o^ aol^l^'iAq tO'iiLt^is ovBd bX/jow ^-ufoo X/ii'nc.i 
oiirfa^s atftt as IX«w f<>- -?■ :f'N"-:W:« Tjnata ©cfio «;ffaiXXeqqA 

?da '^ •^ ■ -rfuqalb ... ^.- ^ ....... ,a©l^B©iip «jtxtt xioqu jf^il'sa&cf 

'isvajac or.^r: -■> aixi;* lo «selfi«©00T:q nJ: oXtf^olXqqjs aeXm 

oct t&L^: - . —_ &ao3 al ^tJU;* ©rfjT Ijrte'ieJb /;£ii Xesnuoo YoXqia© 
noxict 4*:' ■ - v^®|^a.u^ sjcuJ iil a^a^^'' - • : ^ro ft^Jxt^ii ilaxitf 303.7Oiq 

af.*! vr. cfP P..-:?>.oo '8TiX*n_ ^ gniaoWioqqa ©eioei) b 

art! ..,, -'•". .7? Hf^i" ii/.b ♦ii©gfljei3 .od ;ton bSjsotiJi 

U^xiXaXq ©rW nol aotfXolXoe 

:.C©qq« ~ - :;9;tnX e4rf orf OBtevhH zBcmam 

TsJchs-f f^ifd- n.^ •.> ) ft/.iii«qqja oa Abaci »drasXIeqqd 

"rl^rcw aoxwWvs ^olaiA^ 

.iJir.CB'x.:. ..:.._ ... iJiicC arfCJ 

2»elatlons between parties in actions of this character, are 
not friendly, nor the proceedings amicable. However, such 
a situation does not justify the court in assuming that 
plaintiffs, or their solicitor, are not fairly and honestly 
representing the interest of all the parties beneficially 
interested in the premises sou,5iit to be partitioned. We do 
not find wherein the heirship, or the lands which are made 
the subject of the decree herein, were not made to appear 
in the original coiaplalnt in the manner as set otit by the 
decree, even though the original complaint was haphazard 
and poorly draYm* 

The decree is therefore affirmed* 

\ • , Decree al'flrmed. 

^^^Xf. ^. AacU,.c.^.-c^ 


Ob e, .?t5d^'.r: ..: ^.rirt^T ■ .■■i9i^of^ 

©Pi. : 1-^r T^^ ier:r'c:?c a.; ...n^Jtio exit at 

^..^.^o^is^ .a .^<^ 

GEW. NO. 9680 AGENDA NO, 3S 

"" ■ ' ' ■ .i-.'i-».1.-....i . .. .1 I. ,. I. I. .. ■...■,-.■■... .1 I,. ,. ... ■„.ri. I, 



MAI TERM, 1941. O X JL JL .ii* O O O 

— — ' ■ ' ■ " ■ ' ■ .1 i j ii 

NINA 0. ROBERTSON, W-m, ^ i .,.«^ 


FARx,'IERS STATE .iA!TK OW ' .-'") . C10!?RT 6:^^!*^0Q1'0IS COUNTY. 
DANPORTH, a Cornoyati6'5fi» 4' J'"' ^ "'"'-v 


) '* 
,^PELLEES . ) \_ 


This was an action at law by appellant, Mina 0. Robert- 
son, against the Faiaers State Bank of Danforth, to recover 
the ffum of |1421»55, representing the balance of a deposit 
of ^i;l521.55 made by her in said banlc, Ker account vms credit- 
ed with said deposit and the same entered In her pass book. 
Thereafter, she drew a check in favor of William Classen for 
|100, which was presented and paid, thus leaving her balance 
standing at #1421 • 55. 

Tlie deposit originated by way of draft wMch liad issued 
to appellant and her husband, Willis H. Robertson, in payiiient 
for the purchase of real estate owned by them as joint tenants. 

Shortly after appellant deposited this money, the cashier 
of the bank permitted her husband to drav; cut tlie balance of 
tl421»56 upon checks signed by him. Appellant thereafter 


«*«• f^frr ^ ^r^f' 

":t-lix Tio :T jfi 

♦iisi. JL X i J 

• Il^ei ,MfMT Til!i 


•'inedo'A ,0 aatlK \_iaAll9c1qfi t^ waX eta ooltfoxi — 

^±eoq«.b » "Xo ©ortsliaci ©rRt jjflitfn^ad^gei ,ae,I2^I';i I0 care ©jctf 

brought tMs s-uit against the bank to recover said aincfunt. 

Over the objections of appellant, the husband v/as per- 
mitted to file an intervening petition, wherein he set up 
that his wife conducted a coal business In the village of 
Glltnan, and tliat by the operation of such business, she had 
become Indebted to him. He further claimed to be the owner 
of an undivided one-half Interest in the fund so deposited by 
her. He also set up in his intervening petition that certain 
marital differences had arisen between him and his Virife wMch 
had caused their separation, and that in consequence thereof, 
they had entered into a settlement of all their property rights, 
and that by the terms of such settlement agreement, the money 
which she had so deposited, was to be the sole property of said 
intervener, and he asserted claim to the ownership tliereof . 

The jury returned verdicts in favor of the baniv and the 
husband. Judgments were rendered thereon, from which appell- 
ant has prosecuted this appeal. 

The testimony of the husband, as intervener, with refer- 
ence to the matters in issue is very brief. He states that 
the deposit arose from the sale of real estate of which he 
and the appellant vi^ere joint ovmers; that he was liable on 
certain obligations growing out of his wife's operation of a 
coal company in Gllman; that he used a portion of the money to 
discharge obligations of the coal company upon VirMch he was 
liable; and that he had released all claims against the coal 
company. His evidence is barren of anything tending to prove 
his right to 'sd.thdraw from the bank the personal deposit of 
his wife. He was the only v/itness in his behalf. 

Appellant claims that the coal business belonged to the 
husband, and she merely ran it while he gave his time to his 

-i©q 3BW fJHBcfaMl erfcf tCtnaXIeqqa Xo enoxctoetcfo eil;^ cr^^r , 

to 9s»^-tiv &£iii nl fea»flis0d laoo a £«>^ow&fioo ellw aid cfBrO 

-." • -■■',- ."■--'-' ai/«;f £[oi/;8 lo fiQlifl*i©qo ©xl# x<^ ctiKlct biiB ^xiarallO 

-ivD;^. J v^'.v. ^ ^J bsittlslo *£firf*^ijl sH .mlxi o;t fiedcfebni emooecf 

^d" l)©;J^i:BOq©£> os £»fljt/^,®xfct nl. d&^i&^al 'llmi-eao, b9bJ^lbn<' f'^ '"■> 

ali^^t&o iRdJ nol^tld-eq sai;n»vie;tGl alrt at qi/ ;f©B oaXfl c . 

£[o.t£i)P ©tlw &M bES.B mM neew;J®cJ maiiB bad sedfia'xelllf) larfirLara 
tl,oe^^i:i:J @ ap®wp«,^no '> <-■ ' t* i.-^ P)nB ^xxoWaieqeB ilsricf hH^nH'-, bad 

Y®^o^ ®^ 4 cfii®flieei3fl cfnsaieXcf^ea iioi/8 lo anirteM^ erf^^ \;d ^jeri;t Iwib 

.bJtBE, "ip.-^iiaqcysq sXos ©4j ed od" aaw ^ised-iaoq©!) oa bBxl eiia xfoldw 

.loeierEt qMeienwo ©rid- od- xataXo fiectieeea &xl fins ,i9n©vi©int 

siid^ f)nEB jktBGf 9jAi lo lovat nl i^olfWcev l^ecrcijd^ei -^x/t s-^- 

-rXXeqqB rfalrfw moi't ,iioe*s®xict b&iebnet siew e;tne«i3.bxj-T. .f^nsiJeittri 

• XBeqqB ^liM b^iuoecoiq e&ri ina 
-'r6l9>j: fld-Xw. ,'a9£sev^iditfil 8B ,£a3tBda£fii ©xtd' lo x^oaii^taei e^v 

^tBiid- 89;tBiJ3.eH ,*i9,i id x;i©y el ex/esX nl a?**;**!!! otld ocr e^on© 

exl £k)lrlw "io 0JtB#«© XaeTt "io «Xbb ©rfcf ^atotiaL ©ao'jB ;*iacq9£i 9i±t 

«o eXd^lX BBw ®fi ^^B£fe^ lB%%mro ^&lol 9ipsf dljaiXtsqqB erict 6^ 

B lo isolcteieQo e'ellw aJ^ to ,#jjt© jg^ifQis saold'iatslXcfo alaii9o 

ot x.&£tom Qdt lo noliioq B b&mf mi J^M j^jcebctXI?) ni -^ruaqraoo Xboo 

aBVA eil.iiolelw iioq.y -^nBqxaoo Xboo ed^ lo a no li^BgiX do ©guBripalb 

Xboo ericf d-^rxlB^B BflilaX.^. , XXb .foeeasX©^ ijaxi 9ri :is3£i:i bne leLdull 

svo'xq o;t r^jcilMe^t gnlild-TfrsB lo xi9«ia«d i$l eoasMv© alH. .x-^5^o° 

'10 -iJ.fto.rfco lBxi05'S9q./9ji<^ atoa^/ ^rf^ mo'il wa^J&ildlw od" ^d^li aid 

,'iLr>:ied sM kI BaeecMw -iuXjs© ©£W bbw . . llw elri 

9xid- ocf .begrcoXgd aaertlEfsd Xjsg© e^if t&dH./uiLtMlo inAlleqcik 

zld oi GBttd- Blxl 9v»3, ©jI ©XMLcbff d-iiv^u*^ ifXft'x^it »ria ba^ ^baadBisd 

profession as a veterinarian. She states that her husband gave 
her the draft to deposit as her own. In this, she is corroborated 
by the son of appellant and the intervener, as well as two other 
witnesses, who testified that the husband said the money from 
the sale of the property belonged to Ivirs . Robertson. The wife 
denied that she authorized the bank to permit any third person 
to draw against her account. The testimony of the cashier of 
the bank discloses that the husband and wife had borrowed .f700. 
from that institution; that at the time the husband drew out the 
deposit in question, $305, remained due on their note, and that 
the husband paid such balance due by way of check drawn against 
appellant's account. The cashier of the bank offers no explana- 
tion as to why the husband was permitted to withdraw appellant's 

llien appellant deposited the money and her accoixnt was 
credited therewith, the relationship of debtor and creditor 
arose between her and the bank. The separation agreement, 
which v\ras later entered into between the husband and wife, had 
to do with the severance of the marital relationship, and the 
support money to be paid by the husband to the wife. We find 
nothing therein referring to the deposit in question or the 
money from tlie sale of the said property. 

Appellant filed her motion to strike the intervening 
petition of the husband, on the grounds that he failed therein 
to show a direct Interest in the subject matter of the litiga- 
tion; tlmt the matters he sought to inject into the case were 
entirely foreign to those Involved between appellant and the 
bank, and grew out of matrimonial difficulties between them, 
and were based upon their own personal transactions entirely 


avs3 baBtimdt4ii'^MH&s^^6ti& 9'dB ,j[teiri:iM*£«d-«v'fi a£i aolBe&toiq 
bscfjsiocfoffoo ll %Jfifa tUirfd- M ;.i Jtgocrefi oit ilBib eitJ' neri 

Qll .).-Kyadi6dbH .B^EM o;f^ ibsgnoX's'd' x^loqo«iq ibxIcJ lo 9Ijbb ©jrtt 

noEiaq b-iXd^ ■^ob d'iM'iaq o;^ kfifid c/'i ba??2tocf;tj.te eiia iAd^ bslneb 

"io •x^Mbbo adcf "Id i^noniijaed- exlS" .(JauooojS' lezi cfeniagji vBTb oi 

.OOV^ JoswoiTCocf bard e^^w baa Jfeffiscfawri! diici- ifBrfe^ aeeoXocil) afruocf ©xtf 

ctflvrfd' brrs ^ed^or! 'lieMd^ no ©ofe bexilitoffipi ^80S$ ,hol:faeup «Jt d-lBoq©b 

;f artlft^B rms-ib ifoerfo lo Tg:i3vr x6 'sjafe ©oxtfilBtf do ire blieq bnctfairrf ©xl^ 

-jBrtsIqke on aielilo iCrfiftd ©rW lb lelilaBO s'jcKP " •3i3ttJ-a>s(«)« B'^foaXIeqqfl 

e^d-nEllQqqs wfl^brid-lw ocf bscfiUnrx^q liiair' btwrcffeijri ©xfc*- -^lifiir oi as nolcf 

■.:i-\t ebqeb 

BBW ^r,t;j*oo'ofl tcsxl bxxg •t^s.aoiTi ©nj Doy.csoqeD crnoXj-oqqB aerW 

lo^d'ibe'io bKB locfcfsfb lb qixfesribi:fBl©'i ©rfef ^dtJbirfii»d;^ hoi Ibeno 

. '■ ! ©cai^e'xgB'B^Bgq©© sx£T ^afcfB<^ &ii:^ bh« ' %9rf «©6*Sorf' © eotB 

D-iD ^otim fectis b«8d'bi/il siftf n®©wit©cf odrci' berte^fh* •tectBl z^it s£oisiW 

9M: bm't,<^M'aaol:i3l&*i iBilism ©rid' 16 fc-oxxei©v©lB &ri;t xfitlir ob "orf 

bnl'l oW .©Jiiw ©jl;t od bfiacfBwd edii X'^ btzq ©cf o* ^©wbjn ^if^ibq'qire 

©iid^ *io ttol;Je©jjp n± d-'±aoq©b ©jld- o<t gfriitfel:©^ rfididrli 3xi±ri;Jon 

.'. . ,t^«i©<$biq blBe fifri^ lo ©Ibb' sffit Mo-rt^snoiii 

jiij i':jv*i9jtei ©:8ld-- &:&l*iiB, bd- nol^tbitf t»ri Jb<JI11 'rfJoBlIeqqA' 

cil:e*ted& boSllsl bA iJsilcf ebri£jbT:s ©rirf ao ^brsBd'eirri Silt lo'rtbWlifsq 

-B3'lcf±I ©ri;t lo: 'lecJd'Bffi rf'd©ttfj;M #if;?' ftl K^B^Tracfnl ^^enUb B woHe o;f 

©i©w ©BBO &a^ o^iai. i6^lal ~-'' ^ ~a ©ri BieidBm ©iid" tfBdcf ' jjio'W 

9£fcf bciB ckjflXiQqtjB ri9©t«^©d j.:-ovj.uvni 'i8i»arii bd agieiol xJ^®iWn© 

»ijc©rl* jnreewffatf BSlrfXiJ'alllib XB.iirajfe[l>xd^:fiJht la cffe© wstg bnB ^itcusd 


outside tiie issues involved In tli© sidt between lisr and the 
bankj and tlaat under the pretext of filing aii Intervening^ 
petition, ho should not be allowed to bring such raettera into 
this case. The action of the court In overruling her rn.otion 
to strike th® intervening; petition i® assigned as error • 

The intervenap urges that he had such an interest in 
the subject inatter of the litigation as to entitle hira to the 
right to intervene. In this respect, citinr^ Ui@ case of 
Bachellor v. rookt0i*iaan, 291 111. App. 418. And further in- 
sisting tliat the right to intervene exists at law as well as 
in equity, citing in this respect, the case of Grewelnfj v. 
American eiaking Company, 20S 111. App. 604. ¥/© do not consider 
either of the above cases controlling herein, 'ihe first case 
referred to was &n equity matter in which the intervener v/as 
clalaiing a vendor's lien to the property "wiiich was the subject 
matter of the litigation. The second case referred to he.d to 
do with the bringing in of new parties defendant, and v/aa not 
considering th© ri(5ht of a person to intervene. Tlils sitiiation 
is illustrated in ttie case of Hairgrov© v. City of Jacl<:soBvllle, 
366 111. 163, 183, ©t seq. 

The right to intervene is not an absolute rij.'jh.t, and Miero 
such intervention will result in injecting into a s\iit Issues ^ 
foreign thereto, and wlilch only serve to complicate the case. 
Intervention liiay be denied, llairgrove v. City of Jacksonville, 
supra, p. 184. Vi/e are of th© opinion that tiie Intervener had 
no place in this suit* 

In case the bank paid the money to the ri^htfiil party, 
that was a matter of defense for tlie bank. Such a situation 
as existed in this case between tlie barik and appellant, would 
not warrant a tlilrd party coming; into th© case as an intervener 

.V.--.- .-.: .:*» iJ©fl;gXe3^i s-i i-i',)^-j..uf'q..^/i-ui©vi«c?a£ •iW p^Z'.--''- - ■* 

. ??B3J ? J S«Jbirjt» t5*»*«**^ ***** fl^ ♦•fl«ra«;trii otf ;W3Jt« 

-jU laldMiul b«A .aC^ .(iqA ♦ill I«8 ^nAar*ie;?3£ooa .v -xoXXodoafi 

aji XX»w ina wax ^« sStT^lxe »]i:£)7'<ZtK}i!ii q4 {^laii Gii;^ ^A»dJ Sat^tala 

litmBftv %o 0««d #£(£> ^4o0q£!«% KlcU lU Bni;tl<> |\^Xup« ixX 

•ir . 0/ - tW ♦*0& ♦^A. •XXi ^a ^^maqcjoO j^fljift^ fiAolntoaA 

ion eaw daJ8 «d£»i>w»l<5»^ »«lj*'S»q «»« la ill snlsoE^cf m£;» dSlm ob 

♦pea ;re ,«a£ ,5aX .I^^ ^"^^^ 

«. . .y ojtfli 3*tis^©«tflA at Altitun lliv aal^i:i9Vt9i£i^ ....-w 

J* ^T3jt£<jB®a orf «v*r©« ^Xxio doleitr baa ^otfa^aiW fl8i©T:o'i 

,«..>.^ „ .4 aX •OJ&Xq oa 

'■vK :•-« ^iM«| *»ft'--t .•■•,>?. ■.te-'-^-*.i »B!»0 AW nX '^9i«XX» •« 
,,. .,^,.., iUid Crfii- ,., v^'»*« IWtlxl* .** ::r:-,j' rfcri 






^> t.-^' ; 

;-fOld.';/--i ' 

to establish Ma right to the money. The question involved 
was between appellant and the bajik Tflth respect to ¥;hether 
the bank had wrongfully paid out her money, ' , 

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remand- / 
ed with directions to grant the motion of appellant to strike 
the intervening petition, and for a new trial. 

Reversed and remanded with directions. 

£)©. -^ssv) erf? .x®n©fl[ bM o* drigl'- ailrfsctg© oct 

ncur f)B^ ifctflcf erici- 

eixicfe oj cJflJB'XisqqB I'o ndlitpffl' arfjf JjjftjB's:\ oo' ecioldoeitb ditw be 
^lol-ici^ wen B If J'ld'eq '£xttiiov«xeial era 

1 1 o X » ;..■ vxfltsAiur: 

- j?laintiff s filed a distress warrant authorizing th® 
restraint of the personal property of defendants for the sua 
of $1,555 for rent of certain premises alleged to be due on 
July 9, 1932* There was a return made certifying the levy and 
a list of the property distrained* Henry N, Shabsin, "the 
duly authorized agent of and Attorney for the Plaintiff in the 
above entitled cause," filed an affidavit stating that the suit 
is upon a lease for the premises in question for rentals accruing 
thereunder for the months of June and July, 1932, and that there 
was due plaintiffs from defendants, after allovdng all Just credits, 
deductions and set-offs, the sum of $lj555« Defendants filed the 
plea of general issue and an affidavit of merits, and subsequently 
filed a notice of set-off, and, still later, a verified plea. The 
cause was heard by the court without a jury and the trial court 
found the right to the property in question to be in defendants 
and assessed their damages at the sum of $1,660,14, upon their 
set-off. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered upon the 
findings. Defendants have filed cross-errors contending that the 
trial court erred in not allowii^ defendants damages for the value 
of certain goods belonging to them that they claim were unlawfully 
taken possession of by plaintiff John Maypole. 

The affidavit of merits attached to defendants* plea is 
as follows! 

"Joseph Spatafora, for and on behalf of himself and on 


UO^vi..i! . nil 

( ,KO-/IOC;^ -. \ 

♦ THUCX) SET -50 HOBfiqO Wl OS'HavijaG WiklHAOa SOITBUt .iSi 

vmz arid- lol a^fnisfcaelsfc lo •^;ti9qoiq lanoaiaq adJ lo cfnxijid^aei 
no siJb ocf ocf i)©s3ll,;c afjalmenq aii3;;rrs:©o lo ins^ lol ^^^^1$ lo 

9r{;t" ^iilacfjsiie ,VI tjikqH ♦b9flii:?n;raJi> x^isqoiq Q&i lo ;^8il 3 

©riJ fli llld-nisl^ sfi^ lol ■^s«no;t;tA Mb lo ^nesjs besliod^tj/a ^Xfib 

d-JtJja arid J-sfW gaWB^c cJ-lvsblllB as fielxl ",eai/BO bsXctWns svods 

^xjJioo3 alsd-«e'i lol floJtj8<9Wp ai asaJtceiq ©rij- lol ^aissl s noqi; el 

©isxi^t d-xiilt Iins 4^£?*I tXiwI. fcHo f-ouT. lo zAiimm ericf lol lebnijateii^t 

^aJii)9'io cfejJi; lis §ni:woXIii -xsjla ^ scfiLaMelsL moil elliJ'nlaXq oui) aaw 

3rii b©XXl ecfnfiXjnslsG •<i^^^X$ lo isa^a ©di ^sllo-^sa bas enolctoiifceb 

vXdTi9i/p»edi;a ha£> ^ztli'-^^ "(> ..' K' ^.fcille fia fens &uzzl Xeienss lo ssXq 

sxIT ♦ae.r.o r-.f-i t' -.v r ^_^ :,_ :_.;_a ^{jnB ^llo-iaa lo poij on b bsXXl 

d-iiroc .;. .l..^ ^x.. ■ .... xiu'i a cfxroxicHvi J-'Ujoo ©rij X^f bissxl a^w e^tSBO 

zia&buB'lsb ni ocf oj- noilseifp nx x^i»<2o^<l s*!-^ o^ c^riaii sAi bmsol 

lisriu aoqjj ,-^X.Od^^I<i' lo mx/a srid" ;Je aessttsl) nlodi baaasaes bns 

9f(J noqir bsiQd'ii'S d-nsEigbj^f, js ctoil Xsaqqa ellXdriisX'^ .llo-^ea 

sdj d-firid- 3fllbnsd-xioo anoiis-egoiD beXll 9vari ad'acbnslsG .esnJtfxxXl 

9x;Xsv erfd- lol aossxasb ed-jasbnsl&b scIwoIXb jcaa xil bsin© ituoo Islii 

XXXx/lwriXiiu ei9w' fiiiiilo x^tii S&siJ- aiQiii oS inl^olGCf eboos filed' loo lo 

.sIoq^sliL niioL llXdnLaXq ^ef lo nolEEsaaoq aa^Bcf 
aX soXq •ednsbfiolsb o:r boiiojsd-cfs sSliem lo d-XvsbXlljB ©riT 

tewoXXol MM 
no bas lX-:;:raJ:ri. lo IXeilsd no bnB lol .siolad. joL" 


behalf of Bernard Spatafora and Vincent Spatafora, being first 

duly sworn according to law, upon his oath deposes and says that 

they are the defendants in the above entitled cause and that they 

have a defense upon the merits to the whole of the plaintiff's 


w* * * that the plaintiff's claim is for rent alleged 
to be due for the months of ki&y and June, 1932, under and by virtue 
of the terms of a written lease made and entered into by and between 
the plaintiffs herein and the defendants on the 30th day of 
September, I926. 

"Affiant further represents that the said lease provides 
In the rider thereto attached as follows: 

"'That the lessees shall pay to the lessor, at the office 
of the lessor in Chicago, the sum of Five Thousand Dollars as rent 
for the month of October, I926, and shall pay the sum of Four 
Hundred vSeventy-seven Dollars and Fifty Cents for the month of 
November, 1926 and a like amount of Four Hundred Seventy-seven 
Dollars and Fifty Cents on the First day of each and every 
calendar month thereafter to and including the month of September, 
19291 and the sum of Seven Hundred Seventy-seven Dollars and Fifty 
Cents for the month of October, I929 and a lilce amount of Seven 
Hundred Beventy-seven Dollars and Fifty Gents on the first day of 
each and every calendar month thereafter to and including the 
month of March, 1936, » 

"Affiant further represents tiiat in the rider attached to 
the lease heretofore referred to, it also provides; 

"'It being the intention of the parties hereto that the 
lessee shall pay Pour Hundred Seventy-seven Dollars and Fifty 
Cents per month as rent of said premises during that part of the 
first three years of the term of this lease and prior to the 
date of completing the proposed new building and Seven Hundred 
Fifty-two Dollars and Fifty Cents per month during that part of 

. .wtU ai£^a fees aseoqoi) xl^co sxd a&qsi ,Wiji od- aaii^toosB XMEPwa '^^Urb 

9»3iiv x«^ ^i^ lofcffir ^S£^I ^sfOJl. ijfljs xaM lo ailtnoiE SiiJ 'lol Qub s4 o;f 

dswdecf £iCi8 \(i o^al fee-x^J-xj© M« &fo-aa ©aa©! ii«^JXiw a lo saisw end" lo 

1« xijfe i^^^£ »^^ fio e^iL-sfeiifc i9b »ri,j fcfltt aX9i9£i u'X'ililiai&lq edi 

»^S^X ^iscfaodqeS 

cswoiXol &» hB£i^»ii£i o^i^imt %&bln edi at 

iaei a;a £T:*XI«ia ir.^ei;f©ji£ ®7l'? la am^ mi^ ^osBOJUiy fii %»aeaX ed^ l9 

leo'^I lo iSL'a acicr ^^ijq IXaria baa t^i»?X ,^9cfo-toO lo ifctiioci ©4* aol 

V1SV3 bus 4s«s ^0 U^w ;faij6!^I add no e^aoO x^'ii'5 »"Q ^laJULcQ. 

t'i9cf©ed-q»S 1® jEld-iJom atey^^ snjtfci/Xoai ba^i o$ led'iBSitsxld 4;^iie«i astaolfio 

rJ1Jt% fetii® aisXXoii fl«v»«-xda«votJ fes'iiiairH nsveai* si/e MLt iinjs j^^X 

,',c,v«;. 'to ^^xwofiis 9011X s iifus ^K^X ^necfoJsO 1© xldnom add lol adasO 

rill siid ao a^a&O y^^tai feaa aicaXXoa a»v9«--<;;ta©v®a teiiitudl 

od i:«fo*:d'viAj '29M . ... u^ V. -. w sdaaatiqaTc •imiiiu'l iauirtlA" 

;«aiji;voiq asXj* dx ^od baiislsi suo'lodsaerl ©8«eX arid 
aii;i d-iiii ocfoiSii a©ld:iijq srii lo aoliueiai ©rid gnied d-I"* 

^dlX^ imj5 B'i«XXoC[ a«v»»-^da©YsS beii^axiii %iso% \;.©q XXariE seeasi 

sfid lo dijsq d*iiid ^fttiuii a®6X«&iq bl&a lo dxian ea xldnoin asq «^xi©0 

©jCW od uoiiq bit& sesuQl &MJi lo misd ©iid lo aiasx oaucW Je^ll 

i' ^ " CicTcl vv^ii boeoqoaq 9i1d saXd&XqKoa lo ed'sf) 

the first tl-iree years of the term of tids lease after the 
completion of the said proposed new building, * 

"Affiant further represents tnat the said lease provided 
for an additional structure to be built upon the vacant premises 
which were included as part of the demised premises, and tliat the 
lessors did exercise their option* 

"Affiant further states that the language of the lease 
is ambiguous, in that, it states that the rent for the month of 
October, I926, in one paragraph shall be Five Thousand Dollars 
and in a later paragraph, as hereinabove set forth, is the sum of 
Four Hundred Seventy-seven Dollars and Fifty Cents. 

"Affiant further represents that it was not the intention 
of the lessees to pay the sum of Five Thousand Dollars as rent for 
the month of October, I926, but asserts the fact to be that the 
rent for the month of October, I926, was tae sum of Four Hundred 
Seventy-seven Dollars and Fifty Cents. 

"Affiant further states that prior to entering into the 
lease the plaintiffs herein agreed to rent the premises to the 
defendants for the first months of tlie term of the lease for Five 
Hundred Dollars and Forty-five Hundred Dollars security money. 

"Affiant further states th8.t they insisted to have 
interest upon said sum of Forty-Five Hundred Dollars at the rate 
of six per cent per annum, and it was then and there agreed that 
the sum of Tventy-two Dollars and Fifty Cents be deducted from the 
Five Hundred Dollars rental money each month and for the latter 
period of the lease the rent was agreed, prior to the execution of 
the lease, to be the sum of Eight Hundred Dollars a month and that 
the sum of Twenty-two Dollars and Fifty Gents be deducted as interest 
money on the Forty-five Hundred Dollars, as hereinabove set forth, 
at the rate of six per cent per annum, which made the rental as 
provided in the lease for the latter part of the term, the sum of 
Seven Hundred Seventy-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents. 


ad;f ^sficj" bus ti'scLi-ei.:.! i^3ij:^i,ii oiiJ lo cfiaq es fceJbi/IoaJt siaw xlolilw 

»noJt;tqo liarlJ sslaTtsx© bib eioa&sl 
98691 9a£jLf3fl> 39^bJ-2 ledcfii;! itttSillA" 

Ic ilir ^ ri;t nl jax^ox/aidflis el 

aifilloC ufi^ajjoi- ., tj'iS^tsq ano nJfc ^^^I ^isdotoO 

ir o!^isII®a £iii£ai;ejl£ QVifi lo m/a srfj^ X^^l o^ eowtel exicT lo 

ati. seas :J^W€f ,dS^X ,i©doj-o0 lo rl^tnojH 9di 

b^ilimi'n %iJoi Lu anjii :5.-J a«sw «d£^I ^nsdoiaO lo diaom odi lol cJnei 

«W otAl jaiiscTa© o;f ^oiiq isdi aac^si-a ■i©x:f;rij;;l JxisillA" 

©J >&tgjs, fli»i9ri elli.}aiBlq ©liit saasl 

Sfvi'T o giWnofli iaill e/i^ aol z&tiBbas'ieb 

.■^QROiii x^-£^i^»&s EiEsIXoa b^ibmiH svil-x^io'T iMXiS Ei«IIoG kdiiiauH 

sv aiTaian a©;tscta lajdiit/l c^nsJtllA" 

s^si ©/ — i£ii<y? jo Bws bL-iZ acqts cfeaieinl 

tseU" beeig- b&B aoi xjs ^laiarana naq cJ^neo isq xle lo 

9r::? Gioil b&ioubob srf aJriav. ^ inii aiBlIoCi ovfi^'XiaevT lo mi/a add- 

leiioS xanojB Ia;tfioi axalloG i)«iJbxu;H svl'? 

lo nolijjoexs beatcss aaw tfi«i 9di ©esei ©riJ lo boJtisq 

;tarid- bflfi rid-aoa jb aijBlXoCi bQibaui: ifri^lS lo mua add- ©cf oi ^ea^aX &di 

s&isial as b^QMtb jaa anaXXoCi owd--x^fl8wT lo flua arid 

^^^;^1ol :tsa svocfijfiisieii a..:; ^aiaXXoO boofjnx/H svll-Ttdio'? sdi ao \6aois. 

BB Xiadcett aiii ebmi £ioi:xiw ^ssamoB isq Saeo i9q xla lo sdai ©rid da 

lo Aitfa orid ^araad- stid lo tiaq ^©ddjsX Sfld lol osssX ©rid xti fesblvotq 

•'Affiant further states that the payment of Five Thousand 
Dollars as rent for the month of October, I926, was an overpayment 
and that these defendants are entitled to a credit of Forty-five 
Hundred Dollars on the rents that are now due and to become due, 
and your affiant asserts the fact to be that there is no rent due 
under the terms of said lease and that the rent for May and June, 
1932, lias been paid in full. 

"Affiant further states that these defendants are 
entitled under the law to prove the circumstances under which the 
plaintiffs acquired the Forty-five Hundred Dollars for the month 
of October, I926, for the reason that the agreement is ambiguous, 

"Affiant further states that the plaintiffs herein on 
tb* 24th day of May, I932, instituted in the Municipal Court of 
Chicago a forcible detainer suit for possession of the premises 
upon which this suit is based and that a judgment for possession 
was entered in said cause and a writ of restitution issued by the 
Municipal Court of Chicagoj which was delivered t© the Bailiff 
of the Municipal Court of Chicagoj that these defendants were 
dispossessed of said premises by said Bailiff* 

"Affiant further states that the plaintiffs herein took 
Immediate possession of the premises upon the service of the writ 
of restitution by the Bailiff of the Municipal Court of Chicago 
and have been in continual possession of said premises since the 
service of said i^itof restitution, 

"Affiant further states that the acts of the plaintiffs 
in taking possession of said premises upon the service of the writ 
of restitution cancelled said lease and that there is no further 
liability on said lease, and that these defendants are entitled 
to a return and a judgment of this court for the difference between 
the sum of Forty-Five Hundred Dollars and the rent which accrued 
up to and including the day they were dispossessed* 

"Affiant further stated tliat the defendants are not in- 
debted to the plaintiffs in the sum of Fifteen Hundred Fifty-five 

bas&iso£S£. ovJf'i to ^•r^f^«^»is" ^.t &p(*& ss^aie. is/ltTfTt Snalltk" 

9vi'i-x;^'io''I to ;t±£> r 5»Xil;tn6 ©riB B;tnBi>asle£> »«exf:f iBtU ba& 

^sub Bssooeti o'J baB eub woo 91a ;Srsii:} zia&i orW no aiLsXioG b^ibauE 

,IXjj1 nl bifiq neecf asd ,S£^X 

siJB EjcsBfislGo ©esii^ i&£ii BQi&iZ 19diTJfi SHAillA** 
arfcj- riolnv/ I'-ifcn.rr a r^ one;} a hi; 01 io 9r,J avoiq o^ wsX ©ri* iftfecm fceXJ^Wns 

xio cXeierf alli;tniBXc :f!.ii,:fa isri^-iiA cTiibIIIA" 

lo ;}-Xt;oO Tt;;. r;>ff:r" P)t ..:. ^ .,^^_ ^-^^.^M Jo \Bb ri;t-^S wti' 

Bseifiie-i . .. „ .:..;_.._- ,.. ._.. jIsjb i&nlsisb sXcfXoiol & ogBOiriO 

aoiaaesaoq 10I d'SSfiisfet't s jbi^S fif* •- f>«8flcf si ili/e ahiS rioldm noqxj 

lllXXag 9£i:} 9^ beiovtlei. >. .. . iiirrs? ioscolriO lo iitinO JjiqlolsaM. 

o^o-.,- ptrf f'^'^'^' ') SEOrid' ;tterid- jogsaJtriO lo ;fiiroO XsqXolfxsM •di' lo 

•is-rfr- ..- i, ^,-:, Trcf BSeXiffsiq blz-ia lo JbssesBsoqelb 

s^ifpir sfU- lo soivTsa sria i.u>-.-jj crfcxiav.'x^'i.ij lo nolaaeaaoq ©(fslfesflnnX 

ogsolriO lo J-iKoO laql.' ''"■' -^ - '■ '^'" -.[IbE &iii xd floX;^x/i^l;t8 9'i lo 

axld- soflXa a sain:- ' " ;.ot'c;r;w .c-JLTiid-noo ai nescf ovsrl boa 

.floid-x/crxjg!^ io;tlTv b±j88 lo solvisa 

alliJnis.: , :^ .^ 'leri^-rxil :Jn.oillA'' 

;|-iiw ©I' ' :..; nori. eDexiiic-iCi bXi^s lo nolesstaoq aff tii sJ nX 

lerfitij 1 on ai eiy* biiB aa^sX bisa bsXXsofljso nolcf-xntWasi lo 

b9X;J■i;^^s --^la 8;tnBbnol b ijesrfJ^ J-siiit bnis ,©8seX btBZ no TcJ-XXlcfslX 

is9w:tscf soasisllXb oiii 10I ;Jix/oo sirid^ lo :ta®ffl3bxjt s ^jCus m^wctsi b o;t 

bsjjioOH xiDlifw d^nsi oill boa ei^XXoG b^iboxrH 9vX^-"^;^io'5 lo xnua ari^f 

tbsaasaaoqeXb siew ^&£ii ^t&b 0£ii gnXbJuXaflt bns oi qa 

-ill ioil S'i/i bin 9di iftfli BoiisiE: if^rfctTi/l tnr.lTiA" 


Dollars, nor In any other sum whatsoever," 

The notice of set-off reads as follows: 

••TO: C, A. vailard. Attorney for Plaintiffs, 
1011 Lake Street 

Oak Park, Illinois 

"PLEASE TAKE HDTICE that pursuant to the Statute in such 
cases made and provided, on the hearing of the above entitled 
cause the defendants will offer proof to show the value of the 
goods, wares and merchandise, the property of tiie defendants, 
pretended to be distrained for rent in the above entitled cause 
and further that the defendants paid to the plaintiffs the s\im of 
Forty-five Hundred Dollars, lawful money of the United States, on 
account of rent and as security for default in any payments there- 
of pursuant to the lease executed between the parties herete 
dated the 30th day of September, 1926, by virtue of which the 
defendants and each of them were in possession of the premises 
commonly known and described as No. 5901 ?^st Madison Street, 
CMcago, Illinois, in which the defendants previous to being 
dispossessed thereof were engaged in the garage business, storing 
automobiles, and furnishing gas, oil, parts and service for auto- 
mobiles to the general public and et the time complained of, when 
they were dispossessed of said premises, the plaintiffs seized 
under pretense of a distress warrant stock, goods, wares, mer«- 
chandise and equipment belonging to the defendants and each of 
them of the value ef Three Thousand Dollars and upwards, and the 
defendants and each of them are therefore entitled to a judgment 
for the return of the said goods, wares, merchandise, equipment 
and personal property and the sum of Porty-five Hundred Dollars, 
or the balance thereof after allowing any deductions therefrom 
found to be due and owing to the plaintiffs, and will move the 
court for a finding for the said defendants and for a judgment 
thereon for said property in the value thereof of Three Thousand 
Dollars and upwards, and furtiher, in addition thereto, for the 
balance due of the sum of Forty-five Hundred Dollars, the property 

bBjJi li as ©vocffl eai lo sul^isfitfi aflUi ao ,£>»!) iveiq itfis ebjBK b»«bo 

Bcii lo BVl&v Rrij- wort oi looiq tell© XIlw BioabaitlLBb adi 9stSiio 

^^ia^fm&liQb >£;t'i9qQrs:q mii ^BstSmmw^^K. baa fc«iav ^8f>oos 

9jix;-so boljfWn© ©vocfc or':^ lii: ^esi ^:©1: £>eixiLs?:t8 JUb »<f ©^ i^«jbfie^»iq 

aeeJtJii - ., .. aoXassi&aoq isi diofr 00.!^ lo £[ftfi« tiofi 8;fjXAba«ldf> .,. ,.,._,., ii 3;tflB&isel»fe eul^t doljiw al ^EJtoiiJtXII ^oaAOJuiO 

— 'j^uy 'lol ooiviGa &ii^, g^iisq ^lio ^e«a jfiJtdelxxiiJrl fins ^eftXldosoi&fi 

iiijjlw ^lo JDGXTJtsIqiBor; -' ■-* -"ri^ is £!ais olidaq Xstsnea adi o* tsltdom 

/>©s±e? .«!->n-?. , ?.9».ljKsriq bl&z lo b^eaaaaoqiif) •i«r Y®rf^ 

lo ' ■ -■ ''■'- • -' r^-r'- ^X3flol9<f :fii»aqJtJjp9 £»Bs aEtbamiv 

;^n9ics^ij't T *■ ^^litime siols^arid- ans iseiU lo dos9 Jbaa a^ruabixslsb 
^nsffiqJU;^ 'J 49ali>nBii«'ss« ^es-tow ^8fe<:o8 feiiie arf^ lo jroKJ^ei scW aol 

^aisIIoCI £>©<i£)xar ^ r;-%>, ;• ■ to atya ®fi;t iias Tc^x»qoiq L&saensq £tfX£ 

"" '" -Xv^ouiuji) '^- ^aiwoIXjB -^actla lo&iiy£ii eaasl^d' oxid- no 

or.j ■y^:oi.i x±J:7.- £)Ac, . " ' r ' -^^'' .v jj£[jhi,'o bfis; ©ufe ©cf at fiflwol 

^aojfc^i'^^t s Tc .Jii-';wxj^lsi» iji>i3 ©lit? nol snibuil s lol ^ii;oo 

bflfiaifoflT oeixiT lo l«i;j;®j£ld^ ^I^A^ SMtl^ nl x^^^qo-jQ l>i*ie 50I «09T:9xJ;f 
»At 10I . nnu3 EisIIoQ 

of the defendants ziow In possession of the plaintiffs, pursuant 
to and in manner and form as set forth in the plea and affidaTit 
of merits of the said defendants herein* 

'*DATSD at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th da/ of Deeeaber^ 



Attorneys for Defendants" 

Defendants subsequently filed the following verified pleai 

'*And the defendants, Joseph Spatafora, Bernard Spatafora 

and Vincent Spatafora, by John F, Tyrrell and Al^^ixander W, Jamieson, 

their attorneys, for a further plea in this behalf say Idiat the 

plaintiffs ought not to liave their aforesaid action against them, 

the said defendants, because they say that at the tiaie of the 

commencement of this suit there viras due and oifring to the defendants 

from the plaintiffs the sum of Forty-five Hundred Dollars deposited 

as security for rent on the premises heretofore conveyed by the 

plaintiffs to the defendants commonly ^aiown as No« 5901 etc* West 

Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, heretofore paid to the plaintiffs 

by Joseph Spatafora on behalf of the defendants on, to-wit: October 

1st, 1926 together with rent for the month of October, I926 and for 

the personal property and equipaent on said premises used in the 

operation of the same as a garage and for the sale of gasoline oil 

and liutomobile supplies and for the repairing of automobiles, tires 

and eqiiipment thereof; that the said sxm of Forty-five Hundred 

Dollars aforesaid was so deposited with the plaintiffs as a guarantee 

of the future rent to become due and payable on said premises and 

more particularly as balance due for the payment of the last six 

months of the tenancy then existing between the parties hereto 

and subject to the further and additional payment of Three Hundred 

Dollars for the said last six months thereof, and in full payment 

for the rent on said premises from the 1st day of April, I936 to the 

30th day of September, 1936} theit the plaintiffs claim there was due 

tORUBiaq ^allljaisli at^w ^ ..utEseseoq at woo zSa&baot@fi sdi lo 

e^jQUjIsaslsD ariUr oJ aniv-o ishb «JJfe sbw «»^i»d:J ;fJtije alri;? lo Sa&E»oammoo 
b^tsiQqsb 3i£lXoa Js)0«tfti7j '"^x^itfl lo fi&a «ii;t ellWal^Q «fcf ■orrt 

J £'5 , ^ ^^^ .o.i &« fwoa- x-tno^aw' s> ziaaha&lBh 9dS oS sUltalsIq 

allicfxxxalvi a*U o^ bi/sq !*aolo;t9i©rf ^alOfilXII ^osaolrfO ,;J»»«ct8 ixoalfcjaM 

^:9do;t^ a;;rxiafcji0l!2>fc arid 10 llBrfsd ao siola^ttqS rfqf»Bot xd 

•sol afl« d^:-i^i ^i^QJoO io rfc^aoiR rulj *iol ia»*t ASlw 'i9dSB^o:t b*^^i ,#el 

IXo eallotBii ''OiB ^%&ta,:^ e ?.& miat 9di lo JCdi^jsisqo 

BOiii ^asIidoiBCjjLf(s 'lo aatiix^q??*! »ilt toI filifl ; elidoiBOJt/s XmBb 

^ia&iQi -jllld^nifjli. ariJ fid-iw j&wJleoqsb 04 8«ir fclisaattola e^taXIoG 

6fi« aeaJbne- '>Xtfj[?,Xis ba.s siwl) rjsoostf 0;t ^fl«^ »ixrJj;/l adi lo 

xlf a9ffi^c«<l »^ "lo*" orisI««f ss •^IrE«Xj:roi;t"iBq «ito« 

..'^vnjxjsq Ilrl at ba& ^loeiad* aifcfnoi si blae »ri;t lol sidXXod 

Qii; i »XliqA lo xsfc its! Qtit isoil esaiWEJiq felss co tno-r «xfi^ io'! 

and owing from the defendants at the commencement of the above 
entitled cause the siam of Two Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-nine 
Dollars and Eighty-six Cents, the amount of wiiich the defendants 
deny, but wlilch thereby leaves a balance due and owing to the 
plaintiffs [defendants] of Sixteen Hundred Sixty Dollars and 
Fourteen Cents of the money so deposited as rent as aforesaid in 
the sum of Forty-five Hundred Dollars, which balance aforesaid 
becomes due and owing to the defendants fey reason of the defendants 
having been forcibly removed from the premises at 5901 etc* West 
Madison Stireet, Chicago, Illinois, by the election of the plaintiffs 
to recover the possession of the said premises, which proceedings 
were so commenced in the Municipal Court of the City of Chicag© 
before the commencement of the above entitled cause, 

"Defendants further show that at about the time of the 
commencement of the forcible entry proceedings in the Municipal 
Court of Chicago the plaintiffs elected to confess judgment on 
said lease for the alleged indebtedness due the plaintiffs on 
said lease for the alleged indebtedness due the plaintiffs in the 
sum of One Thousand Two Hundred Thirteen Dollars and Eighty-seven 
Cents, including as part of said judgment the sum of One Hundred 
Thirty-six Dollars and Thirty-seven Cents for attorney's fees, 
for rent due and owing to the plaintiff s| that in said proceedings 
in the Miinicipal Court of Chicag© the judgment so rendered by con- 
fession on said lease was vacated and set aside after a full hear- 
ing thereon and after the judge had announced his findings in favor 
of the defendants and against the plaintiffs the court permitted 
the plaintiffs to take a non-suit « 

"And the defendants for a further plea in this behalf say 
that the plaintiffs ought not to have their aforesaid action against 
them, the defendants, because they say that at the time of the 
commencement of this suit the plaintiffs were in the possession of 
the sum of Forty-five Hundred Dollars deposited as security for 
rent on the premises comnionly known and described as 5901 etc. 


syflrifi •fi.t lo saemeoasmioo &di i& aianbaBl&b 9di moil s^iiwo £tCA 

fiifLB stBlioQ xinie bBibauh aeeixtb lo [a^aefciflsleJb] ellWnisXq 
ni. btazeiolB a& inoi no 6oj-±soq»h oa \©iicc «rii lo ed'iisO ude^ai/o'? 

X>JUa9iol'i sooijXtid ^ : ;XIoa b«ir4u;H •vl'i-xi'io^ 1« w« «J* 

ms£>fl&lB|) sric^ lo iioaaei \;if e*iii.5feasl©b &sU oi ^i«o bOA Bab sesodMT 

*asW «o;rs 10^^ ;fB esaiBsaiq mii moil b«voi»rt xXcUoao'l a&od ^atrad 

llial&lq sdi lo aoUo&lo etii -^ti ^aionilXI ,O8«3M0 ^i99iiQ Aoal£>4H 

s3nli)»eooiq rfoXxlw ^esaXxuBiq btsz &&i lo aolaaoaaoq acUt asvoosi o;t 

ogiiolxio lo "^ctX'vi osii lo cfiiBoO Xjsqloiai/Bi sitJ aX b—a^maoo m •^ow 

.saifso bBliliaa svod/s edi lo ^aeaeonsfiaBOO adJ »iol»cf 

«J;r lo 9©x;^ Qxivt vfiiodB Js :^BfW wofla i^ri^fijjl sJtjuj&asleCP' 

XBqloxnjjM 9xi;f nX &^Xb»B0OTiQ_ x%iaB eXcfioiol ©il^ lo d-ftatteonaoHaoo 

ao *a©C53i)x;{, ggeln" ' ' -e^osX© alll^J-nXeXq attt ogaolxIO lo ^tuoO 

no allX^flXaXc SiiD ^ijv c^esubs^fcfsboX £>ss9XXa »xl:f lol saBsX bl^e 

9il:' ■ "iXiJxrXsXq f^ awf> aaaaf>s;tdei)nJ: fc«5|sXXs fiid;f lol easol bl&a 

xievea-vjri.2ixa bfiB eisXIoa a^&iiMi: bBibauE owT ftntiawoxlT suO lo mjz 

bo'ibmili enO lo nuue exij d-ji©«isfcwt ^X«« 'io ^laq as s«XfjiJXoni ^8J"fl©0 

^assl z*x»i^'^oSiB lol e;t«)BO flsvas-^cj-^lft'^' fcxijt cifiXXoa xXe-tJiXriT 

ejjfiLtboeooiq feJtsa nX i-^di \z11ilialBlq 9di o:l- gHiwo bcL& ©uJb ;fjiei lol 

-fioo x^ beiebaQi oa d-nsgJgJbi/t o^'^ ©SboJuIO lo j-tuoD XeqloXiudl «irii fll 

-lijexl XXiil s lec^lis eblQB ie-a ba^ bsJ-ao«v ar^w aasel bins ao GoXa«»l 

OTfil ill asoxforLil eJtd bsomtonnsi beM s^bMl sffct i©;tljB baa ao»'ieriS ?nX 

bsiileii&q dowoo eri;t allJ^'xiisXq adJ isfsiesfi fcfis si-UBJbnelsb ©f{;t lo 

^j'iwa-rton s «i6:t oj- allX^nlisXq adi 

XS3 IXjBXIecC eidc^ al seXq i6«Icr'3;iJl 3 10I t&iSLsba&lsb sjI^ fcixA'' 

alig^ ooXd^o^j fciscioiols ixeilrf evef; o^ joa :fr(sxfo alll^nXisXq erid- ;tBxfct 

©ii^ lo sml& 9f{.; ^^x. ^sri^ \&a \&rJ eaaBOscT ^a^nsfoiioleJb axi:^ ^jnari;^ 

lo iXoiea9£Eoq ed^J nx az&w sllxc^fllfiXq 9Ai iissz zMi lo iaemeoaeamoo 

lest Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, on to-witt October 1st, 
19261 that said sum of money while deposited as security for rent 
at the election of the plaintiffs in exercising their right to 
terminate said lease the same became subject to any indebtedness 
between the plaintiffs and defendants for rent only on s&id premises 
and that after allowing to the plaintiffs all such sum or sums of 
money as may have been due to the plaintiffs from the defendants 
at the institution of this suit there was due and owing to the 
defendants the sum of Sixteen Hundred Sixty Dollars and Fourteea 
Cents J that the plaintiffs by virtue of the distress warrant filed 
herein and these proceedings comraenced pursuant thereto did levy on 
the personal property and business of the defendants bought from the 

plaintiffs for which the defendants paid the sua of Three Thousand 

Dollars to the plaintiff sj that the defendants^took possession of 

the same and appropriated the same to their own use and have persisted 

in retaining said personal property as aforesaid; that the defendants 

from time to time had added thereto until the value thereof was not 

less than Thirty-five Hundred Dollars and that said property so taken 

and retained by the plaintiffs is of the value of to-wit: Thirty-five 

Hundred Dollars and that there remains due and owing to the defendants 

from the plaintiffs therefor the sum of to-wit: Ihirty-five Hundred 

Dollars for the business and personal property of the defendants so 

unlawfully taken as aforesaid* 

"Iherefore the defendants pray Judgment if the plaintiffs 

ought to have their aforesaid action and that the defendants hare 

and recover judgment against the plaintiffs in the sum of not less 

than Sixteen Hundred Sixty Dollars and Fourteen Cents and the further 

and additional sum of not less than, to-wits Thirty-fire Hundred 

Dollars for the business and personal property so taken, or in the 

alternative either or both of said sums in the amounts hereinabove 

described and set forth* 



^^el le^o^L ^c:loatlll ^osfioJbip ^;^t«i^^ iXoeUb^U ^cflU 

ji TCd^lTUo ; Jiaoqel) alidw AjaaoK lo laua blaz ijuii j^S^I 

«}• c^riigJt'j. -ilv ucliooL® Bdt i& 

lo aMf8 ^.o t&iJB doju^. alvolle isila i&a bus 

aSa&bael&b suSJ . &iii o,J 6ii£> ixesd svaxl ^sc aa \Qaoff 

9ii:t ocf sixlwo ijiis si/i) asw s-ss/i;? tlm ^Xtii lo iioJufiJ^Wenl aiU t» 

f>sXll ia&*i\m tm^iislb 3»2(^ lo yjuJ^'ixv vc' el'^idnlslq fi4* ^adi ^sd^nsO 
no xvsX i>li; ocrei&itf d^a&eainq bs^amrnQO z'SfiMi&Booiq BuoeLi b£L& nlaiftri 

biissuodT eQ^£ le Mfjl s^ i:'J:aq ziaabn^l^b ^ 4d-t4lw lol stllX^^nXeXq 

lo xioieeoe30(/ ioo^^3c^n«Lfi©l6l) strict i^xnii islli^fiXsXq esU oi zi&lloQ 

zi.Ei&q svEi J.&£ii oJ- @iibS8 Bsii L'9;)'£iaqo^q.qB baji Sso&s e£i;t 

iisJbnsl9f) ©riJ cTsit;^ ^Maga^o'^B ea ^d^isqo'iq Isaoeieq feJtije sflJfciils;Jei ai 

^on as«8- loeisxiJ- ^wlyN in// oii^iodi bebba bad 9mli oi oaiicf Koil 

'2£ij.t 02 T^^iaqoi. . iBiXoa b»ibnsM ©vil-xi^ilcrx nj6fi;t 8a»X 

H-X^'xl/iT tji:?.''-oj TO 91;!. xo ej: alliiiiX«X.: arii Xd baal&isi fcas 

Lsiiaslei bus 5£ffc ?,p.lii&mi oiu-d^ :}£iiii baa aaaXIoCI beibatsE 

bB'ibauE. 9vxl--^j'iljti. rd-i^- ;tiwe 9ri^ lolsisxU- allic^nisX^ sxW fflo^l 

02 aJxxsfcnelel) arid sqo'iq XBHoaisq Xtfia aeanleijcf 9il;^ nol E'xaXXoC 

allXdriXiBXq ©fW li: cfnsc^^n': xeia L-,:tn ibcslef) ed.i siolftierfS" 

sTsfi a;Jfla£yael9f , iosoiolij iXedi 9M&d oi id^uo 

seaX iofi to ua . iiisS-G ;t«o»®b£;t isvooea £«as 

.-;e7^r^r i7vl:'t~v:i'ilrr rH:;^-, ^ .. .; on lo fiu/fi XBffoJt:rifo6a bcLs 

siio' xtl -o ^.. .... ,, ..,„.., ^,.. ,,.,.. J .i:,. „,:afl;ia«d »fid- 10I aiaXXoG 

Qvof- f'.'-'^-r^^rJ -im;/-.r ^>rf ^ r^; r.M.-: i,^..:- to dioQ 'io isilj-le evJuJaniod'Xs 




Attorneys for Defendants* 

The demurrer filed by plaintiffs to the plea was sub-* 
sequently withdrawn and they thereafter filed a general and 
special demurrer to the plea, but no order was ever entered in 
reference to the same* 

Plaintiffs contend that there was no ambiguity in tine 
lease touching the payment of rent; that all previous conversations 
and negotiations leading up to the signing of the lease merged ia 
the v/ritten instrument; that the trial court erred in admitting 
testimony of previous negotiations and conversations that tended 
to vary, change or contradict the te^'ms of the lease » 

The lease provides that plaintiffs, lessors, leased to 
defendants, lessees, "for a public garage only, the premises ioiown 
and described as follows, to-wits one story garage at 'J^01 and 59^3, 
and the vacant lot located at 59^5 and 5907 ^^&st Madison Street, to- 
gether with the appurtenances thereto belonging *• * ** To Have and 
To Hold The Same for and during the term coEuaencing on the First 
day ©f October, A. D,, One Thousand line Hundred and Twenty-six 
(1926), and expiring on the Thirtieth (30th) day of September, 
A. D,, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-Six (I936), inclusive," 
The lease further provides: "First:— Lessee shall pay to Lessor^ 
the rent hereinafter set forth iu the rider hereoo attached and 
made a part hereof," The material part of the rider reads as 

"It is further covenanted and agreed by and between the 
lessor and the lessees named in the lease of the premises situated 
at Nos, 5901 to 5907, both inclusive. West Madison Street, Cixicago, 
Illinois, to which lease this additional agreement is attached and 
of which it is hereby made a part, that t he lessees shall cay to 
the lessor^i at the office of t h e lessor in Cliicaeo^ the sum of 
Five Thousand Dollars as rent for the month of October^ I926. 


aiio ij 321 svftoo aiictva-: .... .„„. ;o inecs^sq ©riJ" anlilsiiod^ dsfiol" 

'■:' + ' ■ :.:^^^ ... ,. a.wa.^..xJos9n exroiveiq lo xja.omlizBi 

c.-^ ^u Av^^G.-. J. ^ '^>'-- r= I" c^adJ a©E)lvoiq ©aseX srfT 

ocf ^^asTGtS iioel^B!.' •■"""" "~ ""'■": ' '>'jd'sool d-ol d-nso-s-T erfd' baB 

bet; avail oT ," " ,, ■. ^ .- ■. oot.-it'iw oivaBCiB^'tuqqa edi rft^Jmr isifes 

teii*^ mQ no ^jiixDnriiiCioo en:©;? erfi g«lii/£) brts idl s«ija3 sdT bloE o7 

^tayi&iiltml ^{oi^I) xl&^xS'iMx bos bsibmsU talZ bOBZUoin aaO ,,0 .A 

3ia afcjB©! i9bli Qdt to ^fSi^H l6iiecJ'^«t sxfT ".losirari ^lisq b sbsa 

>^ j^iaJ"Jte essJxeiq sii. i£»I o^ ill liftffifiti eseaael mUt ba& lossal 

^osj^oiiuO ^cfsa-x.^^ noeifcsM cfasV ^©vieyloxU riioa ^^^?<J oi 10^^ ,eoE ^s 


and shall pay the sum of Pour Hundred Seventy-seven Dollars and 
Fifty Gents for the month of November, I926 and a like amount of \ 
Four Hundred Seventy-seven Dollars and Fifty Cents on the First 
day of each and every calendar month thereafter to and including 
the month ©f September, I929; and the sum of Seven Hundred Seventy- 
seven Dollars and Fifty Cents for the month of October, 1929 and a 
like amount of Seven Hundred Seventy-seven Dollars and Fifty Cents 
on the first day of each and every calendar month thereafter to and 
including the month of March, 1936j and the sum of Three Hundred 
Dollars on the first day of April, I936 as rent for the months ©f 
April, May, June, July, August and September, 1936. The lessees 
shall also pay to the lessor the sum of Two Hundred Seventy-five 
Dollars per month on the first day of each and every calendar month 
from the date of the completion of the proposed new bixilding to he 
erected on that part of the demised premises knoiwn as Nos, 5905 
and 5907 ^^est Madison Street, to and including the month of September, 
1929* It b eing the intention of the parties hereto that the lessee 
shall pay Four Hundred Sevent y-seven Dol lars and Fifty Cents per 
month as rent of s aid premises during tliat part of the first three 
years of the term of this lease and prior to the date of completing 
the proposed new building and Seven Hundred Fifty-tii?© Dollars and 
Fifty Cents per month during that part of the first three years of 
the term of this lease after the completion of the said proposed 
new building, 

"It is further understood and agreed that the lessor shall, 
at his expense, construct a one story brick garage on that part of 
the premises known as Nos, 5905 and 590? "i^i/est Madison Street, cover- 
ing substantially all of the vacant part of the demised premises, 
and shall have the same completed, ready for occupancy, on or about 
the first day of September, I927." (Italics ours.) 
, " In view of the ambiguity in the rider we are of the opinion 
that the trial court was justified in allowing defendants to prove 

fcns ariBlIoC; aeT*e-t*fl9V«»fi b&ibiisM 'Wo'H lo msjB t^dJ xaq ll&dz baa 

xo imsoas 9^il s baa ^.^I ^netJK^voM to licfnoE; &d^ lol e^neO x^lJ:'^ 

ienJt^i ©ri^ no E:fflsO -^^mt^ has eialioG a«v©c-x^fl»v»& bs'xJbmrtI luo'? 

affJtfcirissai' fofLB ©^t 'iecMs9i9rit rfi^noin nsfeEtsIso ^isv© fens xlos© lo ^eb 

"XinennsQ b9'£htwE s:®v©8 lo teus 9di^ ba& \^^£ ^iBtSmBiqe^, lo A&aom aitt 

£; ijflfi ^^I ^isdo^oO 1© diaxm ©rid rol eiaoO %i*tn bos siRllod nsvee 

ziaeX) x^^jf'? fefts 8TEbII©<I it9vsa-.'^as»ve8 fosifeKoH n«v©€ lo rf^xiuomB 9itl 

fefxe 0:t isi-lB»'i»ri;J' iJixtoffi ^!:ba9-ljsi& ijisvq fcns fioae lo XBb ;tBit'i ©rid- uo 

bft-xfermH ssirfT lo mjya arid laijs |^£^1 ^rfuiJsM lo i&rm» ©ri* sttlfcuXoHl 

10 aifdiioH erid- lol drtsi a a ^t^I 4li^qA lo x«^ d'eiJtl ©rid no aielloQ 

a99a8i)I si'T •^£'^1 iti#tfa©d<i©fe 6&ft ttaBiiiA ^-^iiw; ^am/t ^-^aM ,XinqA 

njvtl-x^nsvdii bs?i]bxi£fH offT lo iKue ©rid rweesl »ri:f o^ Tfsq obIb Ilsria 

iijaoffi isl)a»Xfc» xi^'vs tan ifois^ lo xb!> ^aiJtl srid co ri^tnoE T©q bibIIoQ 

o«f od saiMiwcf ^Sfi fe«p,oqoT:q orid lo flol;f9lqEto£i «rid lo ©d^isb ©ri^ noil 

^O^c ,8oM 3B iwomi Eeateeiq £>ealK»^ ©rfi lo iiaq dsffd' no bsdosio 

cffiisd-qoQ lo rid^aoE srfd jjfilM/IortI baa oi ^i99iiE rcoalfceM ;^8««f!' ^0^"^ faxs 

©eas^X ©rid" ;^;^d. odsiori ZQj^ii &a etii lo noJ:;tnediil ©ri^ attJtgcf dl i^^X 

^©q i;f«eO xm% fcgg aigJIoG gfT»^8rY^ g»^»3 fceifomtH r acfH. xbq IXarie 

eiy-ifi^ d^STJLl 9d& lo dxag diadd su Utiiafe nvaiB BtQ tist lo d g©^ ajs rijgo g 

S*ild©Xqn©o lo ©dijfc ©rid od loiiq bas 9Bi&»l KM d lo ati ei odd^ lo ansex 

baa ertsIXoG w/c^-x^'^X'^1 feeiibiufH «©/©£ bnn aclfeXli/ef wen becoqooq arid 

lo 3i«©x 9©«iricf daill ©rid lo J-rtdq dijfld gulfi/Jb ridcofl Tsq ^iaaO \dli^ 

riSgoqoTiq feJLsE ©rid lo fioxds'Iqffifos ©ri^ ^©d^la ©rb©X eJLrid lo ai9i ©rid 

•aniJbXXi/cf w©a 
XX£rie tiot»©X ©rid d^cjrid bfs-isE bti& booda-xetm/ isridiul ei dl" 

!• iisq d";-i1d ao ©gaiiss xolicf x^<^*^« «B«' s d^JBideaoo ^saneqx© eJbd d'* 

■levoo ^d^eorr^a aoaiJbfiM Je»w ^0^^ fecLs ^0^ ,b«I «3 iS»«cDJ fBtastq, ©rid 

^a©«iaa9aq fc©a±Kef) arid 1© tiaq diusoisv ari^ lo IXs xXXistcfiXA^aififa axtl 

oi/o€frf 10 no tX^iifiqxiooo 'lol x£»s©i ^fesd"eXqi6O0 an&e arid' ©vsri IXaria £ita£ 

(•a-WK) 3o1Xg:JX) ".'^seX ^i^ctas^qefi to \aI) d-eill ©ricf 

oijcilqo ©lid lo ©is ©w isfclrr 9ri;f al \iM£rs,l<im& ©rid^ lo w«lv nI 

— 11*» 

that the actual rent for the month of October, I926, was $500, 
and tliat the |5,000 paid by defendants to plaintiffs included 
the said rent and $4-f^Q0 deposit as security for rent to be 
applied on the rent for the last six months of the lease. The 
oral testimony overwhelmingly sustains defendants' contention that 
Maypole and defendants agreed upon a rental of $500 per month until 
the new building was erected, when the rent tols to be $77^ per 
month until September 30, I929, and thereafter $800 per month; 
that Maypole demanded security for the rent and defendants agreed 
to put up $4,500 as security but demanded that they must be 
allowed interest on the $4,500, and that Maypole agreed to defend- 
ants' demand; that after Maypole's attorney had figured the interest 
per annum on $4,500 at six per cent, it was agreed that after the 
first month's rent, upon which defendants would not be entitled to 
interest, interest should be allowed defendants by deducting $22.50 
per month from the rent during the tenure of the lease, the $4,500 
deposit to be used as rent for the last six months of the term, 
with $300 additional, less interest, payable on April 1, I936; that, 
accordingly, defendants were to pay $500 rent for October, 19265 
$477.50 per month, thereafter, until the new building was built, 
and $752, 5'> per aonth during any part of the first three years after 
completion of the proposed new building} after which the rent was to 
be $777 •^^ per month. At the time the deal between the parties was 
consummated and the lease signed defendants gave Maypole a certified 
check for f8,000. It is agreed that Maypole charged defendants 
$3,000 for the garage business (defendants had $5#000 to their credit 
in the Columbia State Savings Banlc but they were obliged to make a 
$3,000 loan with the bank in order to consummate the deal with 
plaintiffs), and it is agreed that $3,000 of the $8,000 check 
represented a payment by defendants for the business. There is a 
dispute between the parties as to what the $5,000 balance of the 

check represented, The check bears upon its face the following 
notations in typewi-itiag: "Dep. $4500 Rent $500 Bus, $3000." 

i)9f5ijXr>fii zttisalBlq oi eJ-afifjaelsfc ^cf i/Jbsq 000^^$ acfct d-ad;t fills 

3il:fiX0ffi KXi , o'l ;^ii9^ sili xxo ijeilqq* 

liitntr xljnc X^ii^ns-i b aoqp ba9t^& ajiusiaasldi) im& oXcqi^Bk 

loq ^^^^ ^-sw ia&'i sdi aexiw ,i>€>;t3©i9 sew aQXi)Xiifcf wea. jsuld- 

i)e»i3B gJrtsJbflslsb lias ;^fl©i ©it:? lol x^J^^wos* bBtwua»b &loq:y^^ i&di 

M d-fjEfF- -^jerij jsxlcf b9f)jass»i) dt'Ji^cf x;}'X'SJ,fOQa ^& 00^, -M; qw J-xiq o:t 

-bflo'; >Ioqx«M d'aiiit iJOB ^00c»H ^^^ ao jao'ie^al bawoXXa 

■-dw ts^;!-!!; .J-^xid- he'S'i'us »ijw ;tl ^^aoo i4>q. xia ^a OOc^-^i ao nottuifi i©q 

^2ii^ 2nt:jtinbf^'-: xrf •jd-n,.;fcnc'tob b'5v;oIIs M foXuoiia J-eeieJ'XLi ^jseieJ-ni 
^^ ■ 4 .1-.- .xiyi siij" JBOil £l;Jaoai asq 

* ;rvl ,j; .'c rXcJr.YGfi' ,;J^s5iooiii aasX ^XsaoWlbba OO^^ il;tiw 

\u-^'^l 4 '.u ■.;■•..•. - . .s-v; tjiisfciielsb ^xl:^lbiooo& 

^JIlL'c' .. - , i.-'isii^r ^il^jnofi neq ©^•'^^•►$ 

- .,, ^_ ^.iXti/ii dtaou loq 0^,2^^$ fma 

o.i ... ^... ._„,„, ^..ij'rrtKT ^f^,xr 'j^-'onoTq ©iij "io noXjeXqiBOO 

■ ■:'' f.'-'Ti •i'-.f .^^.^» ©._ .._. _.. .. ..ziaaca. isq 0^%VS^^ •^f 

&9ili^i-.u ., ,.:.;,.., \,.,, ..v.,,., ...v..3£>fl:®'isl) 5©xi3i« 98i:idX Qd& has, bQ^ssmsisitoo 
■'■&fi&kaslQb fees^P-''-^ -.^n^x^ j-ijriJ- i;s9^g4 ei il ,000^8$ aol ^o&xlc/ 

.> ...^.,:iiii oJ- bfegiloc- ' " "" Y^fi^ ^^(^ ylsmE ssjeIvb^ ©^Tb^S aicfiatiXoO exl;^ at 

>£o©ilo 0' ,'■ ' ■ '" /' jLj99iajB ai ^i fccis ^Calll^tiiXfiXq 

6 si sisdT .c.'i.i .-..>;■..; v-(i. - - ' ■ : -i^jiryr^q ^ b 9;|'n© 8 3iq«"i 

'"'" "■" "■"" ' ■' -'"\^'° ' , ,., :-,:i^ ii-9w;^9cf o^^uqalb 

> »ii.:t oosi ad'i aoqja axi^sd :2ioono siiT .L' rlo 

Joseph Spatafora testified that when the bartk O.K.'d the loan to 
defendants, he went to the bank teller and had a check made out to 
John B, Maypole and Wife and asked the teller to put on the face 
of the checK what it was given for, and the bank's typist then put 
on the face of the check the notations as to deposit, rent and 
business, and that after the check was certified by the bank 
Spatafora gave the check to Maypole, Charles [Yincent] Spatafora 
and V» M« Patano corroborated this testimony of Joseph Spatafora, 
Maypole testified that the notations were not on the check when he 
received it, but the trial court disbelieved this testimony, and 
after a consideration of the oral testimony and the check itself 
we are satisfied that the trial court was Justified in believing the 
testimony of defendants* witnesses and disbelieving Maypole's testi- 
mony. Maypole, a man of some affairs, had full opportunity to call 
employees of the bank to impeach defendants' testimony as to the 
check, but he did not do so. Maypole's testimony that it was dis- 
tinctly agreed between defendants and himself that defendants were 
to pay ;|5#000 rent for the month of October, I926, his testimony in 
reference to the check, and the high-handed manner in which he treat- 
ed defendants, all tend to show that little vjeight, if any, can be 
given his testimony. The lease was drawn by plaintiffs' attorney, 
Ifir, Mills, and it is very significant that while Maypole testified 
as to the negotiations ajad conversations leading up to the execution 
of the lease he did not call Mr, Mills, who took part in the nego- 
tiations, to corroborate his testimony that it was agreed bet?/een 
the parties that defendants should pay the astonishing sum of $%QQQ 
as rent for the month of October, I926, the brazen position of 
Maypole, that if defendants had defaulted ia the payment of rent 
for the month of November, I926, and were then legally ousted from 
the premises by plaintiffs, the latter would be entitled to retain 
,- the $5,000 as rent for the month of October, was so unconscionable 
that no one would believe his testimony on any disputed question 
of fact. The oral testimony, that plaintiffs claim should not have 

od^ ^xjo s^bvijs aiof^rls d f>sd &afl ri*!!*^ jintnH adJ ©* J new eii ^f&iaabaB'leb 

9oal Slid" no #i«:t o^ 'LeLl9:} edi Joq^Isb fefu »1JW fins »Ioqx«^ "^ ndol 

.tijq am^ jelgt^ a»3{fl£,d Prid- baa ^^^o1 a»^fL:^ ?,6W ;fl SbAv .Vssxlo »rid' lo 

fe&s iKet ^^ieoqsfe od' ae exxoij&ioa sd^ 3it9£l& ©rUt lo «Ofil edi no 

^arf Oi£? Ytf hBl\li'i&^ aaw ^9«il9 ©rfcf is^^ls SsdS baa ^sesnleud 

i{ nerfw Jiosrfe ^i no &<hi d^ew eaoljs^ofl sdi isdi b^lttiaet 9loq\«M 
fcfi;^ ^Xirm&iSiifi:^ aMJ ftevaiietfalb cf"iiLPoo l3l«i;t »xl;f d^xref ,;M bevisosa 
llee^i >[Ot)jcfD &d^ ijfijs >[j5tO0i;:^e9;t Xsio 9£li lo nol^sisblenoo b leilB 

-iJ29;t a*»loqxj^ SalvsHftcfalb ba& a»caend-Jtw • 8cfnRbix©l»fc lo \noafl;fB»;J 

ILbo o^^ v^llLDd^ioqqo Iljril bad ,8iJb8ll8 »Bioe lo asm &^9loqx^ .-^oa 

Q£it od* ea veoiBiJ-ftP^t^ ^niaabaslsb A9B9qml oi sktBcf ^c? lo ese-^olqina 

-^ifi saw 11: trA^ xt^cmlia^ s*Pioq"^BM ,oe ob ion bib ari ji/cf ,2lo©jdlo 

913W 8;fftflr&fs©lsf> iiari;!' llseiciri feOB ^:$aiib^e19b neewctsd Jossisb xld'onW 

al xa<«K^^3»^ alri ^^^X ^*s«cfo;:tou l© ditiom ^dS lol cfasi 000^^$ xaq of 

tB©"!^ «9C! rioJbfiw fLt ifrLmsm hisbtmd-'d^M ©rid- £«fs ^ioorio sdi oi aoaeisloi 

©tf OBO ^-^iijs 11 ^dxl^iew ©XjdiX i^l^ wade oj fctfisd XXc ^^iasbaeleb be 

^X^^^9ita ' allMnleXq ^d mrsTfJb asw wbbsX ©rH? ."^ornXd-ea^r eiri nevXg 

i>ollld-aed sXoqxaM eXifiw darid- dtteoilinala x^*^ el dl baz ^aXXlM .tf 

aoxrfcroaxo oricf od qr sfilfcssX aiiol;tB2'i9v«oo &as nmolSst&c-gea sdt ot bb 

~o39n »fSt Jtl l"t«q atoocf oriw ^aXXlM .lift XXso cfofl blf> eri ©easX ®d^ lo 

^©©wd'S'd feffe^e R.sw :ti d-srid xno-nld^eed aM ©d'Briotfoiioo os ^enoiJ'BW 

000,^^ lo ftlira afnlffBlao^ac ©rfcf y«ki feXxfOrie Ed/isi«f)l©fc {farJ- teltisq »iit 

lo HoWlaoti fSBSfiitf erfT #de^X <i©«sfod»0 lo ilctntas edS lol d^oen ea 

la&i lo d-n©Br^Bq ©lid fll &S!>dXiraleJb bad attmbaBteb 11 &Bdt ^eioqxaM 

aio'il beiBiso xlXBg^X nsrid «;i!?w bus ,^S<?X ^isefatrvoa lo lidnwc 9d^ lol 

nlB^ei o:? bsXdld-ii© ©«r feXiJOw i^cfd^eX ©rid^ ,alll;fnl3Xq \«f a©elii0^q ©rid" 

. J^iHoloajio&m; o8 asw ^rtedoctoO lo r{;tnoffi ©rid lol ^aen sb 000^(1$ sri;^ 

nox3^e»ijp LsJt-wgslb -^chb ho \ixoittld-8©^ fclrl 9V©1X©4 i>Xj:;o;v ©no oa iBdS 

fm.. r_ _& . r . 


been admitted, simply clarified the terms of the lease as to rent, 
and it would have amounted to a miscarriage of Justice if the trial 
court had held with plaintiffs that the rights of the parties must 
be determined solely from the language of the lease that provided 
that $5*000 should be paid as rent for the month of October, I926. 

Plaintiffs contend, "Even if the $4,500 should be construed 
as being a deposit, the defense set up in defendants' affidavit ©f 
merits, the matters set up in their notice of set-off, and the evi- 
dence in support thereof, all comprise a claim or demand not due at 
the time this distress suit was filed. It was, therefore, not a legal 
defense to this suit, nor a proper subject of set-off." It is a suffi- 
cient answer to this contention to say that neither by any pleading 
nor by any motion, nor by any proper objection raised during the 
hearing, did plaintiffs raise the question involved in the aforesaid 
contention, and they will not be heard to raise it here. Moreover, 
there is no merit in the contention. 

On May 24, 1932, plaintiffs instituted, in the Municipal 
Court of Chicago, a forcible entry and detainer suit for the posses- 
sion of the premises in question and on July 25, 1932> recovered a 
judgment for possession. On August 1, 1932, a writ of restitution 
issued, which was executed on August 2, and on August 8, 1932, defend- 
ants, under that writ, were dispossessed of the premises. Maypole 
admitted that he thereupon took possession of the entire premises and 
that he has "been running the [garage] business" upon the premises 
ever since. The evidene© also shows that Maypole took possession of 
the personal property in the garage and has been using it in the garage 
business operated by him upon the premises. In the present proceed- 
ings plaintiffs, in their affidavit in support of the distress warrant, 
claimed that there was due them the sum of $1,550 for rent for the 
months of June and July, Plaintiffs obtained possession of the premises 
on August 8, 1932, and it woiad appear, therefore, that at that time 
they were entitled to only three months' rent, at %777*5^ per month. 

^iaoi o^ 86 SEB6I S£SJ 'lo Effiis* oiLS boilliJsXo \lqmtz ^be^fJlausa aeetf 
SB,£SEi z&L&i£q &i:} lo sct^risli eri:f Jfirfd- elilij^ftlislq rid-lw bled, bsd &'woo 
,d£^I ^i9cfo:foO to rf^floiB e>ri* not ^ns-i aa felaq ©d bll/oiie 000,^$ iad^ 

~l:v9 adJ ba.& ^llo-^ae t« eoljoc ilsrf;^ ill qw t®E arEotf;Jaa ©il^ ,B:^i:<X8« 

ts eab 3ofl bnefiisfo to ml&Lo s sainqooo lis ^to^itttiS ^i9qqis& al eoasb 

Issal a *oa 4©iol9rr9ri;t ^8S»f :tl .b»Xll eaw j-ltra aaarKf&tJb elfW 9mt& arfi 

-llliTE e ai ^I ".llo-ise lo iostaire isqofq 8 ion ^ilue Jthii oS »aael9b 

Salb^^Iq \;iiB x<^ isild-l8fl j-srii -^se «;t xioictns:tnoo alri^ oJ- ^eiweas 4"colo 

sfli sittii/fi 5©8JtBt i3o±;t5©t^<5 -teqoiq ^jn*; -^d loa ,aoi::tOfli xfls X*' io« 

blB^&ioIti 9ri;t Hi bsvlovnl itol^awwp sHt ealmi «llld«l«lQ Mb ^aaiiBed 

^a©TOf:'ioM ,9iBd 31 dsJtBi Oct biB&d 9«r i^on Iliw -^©ri^f ba& ^aolStt^iaco 

,tioUn&iaoQ 9iii nJt tJtisai oa «1 •neili 

IjsqioirujM 9ti& ta ^bBSsrfUBnl slllifllclq ^SC^X t*S x«Jf aO 

-a^aaoq 9ri:f lol J-Jtne isnira^eb bns t^cfns sXtfiortol d ,«s«ojbi0 lo (tni/oO 

a bsievossi t^C^X ^(!'i: yXi>% ao ba» rtoltatUp n* asalffis-xq 9dS lo nola 

flolc^I;d•l:fss1 lo j'ii-'f s ^S£CI ^I :}-gj;;si;A nO .noiaaeaaoq ^ol ^asmabjjt 

~l3iX9l9b ^S£?X %8 d"8irsifA no bns ,S d-srgi/A no bo^jioi?»xe siaw rfolrivr ^bwxeeX 

sXoqijjaM .aeajtarsiq sxW lo boeessaoqslb »imi ^Htk i&d^ i9bau ^eitug 

kaii asaiBenq aild'flo adS lo xtolaaesaoq afoo^t jH^i;oi©/f;t sri cfsri^t ba^^lobA 

asajtiaeiq of':t aoqfs "eaanlairtf [p§sibs!1 ®rf^ Sajfcraufi tt&&^ aari ©ri ;tfid;t 

!• nolBSsaetq aftod" sloq^eSI J'^ifd' surods ©eXa aonsblvft sriT .eoafa i9t» 

sSfi^sa ^di at il anlau nssd aai! bus sgjBifijj airf* ill -HfJi^qotq IsnoaieMi 9ii;J 

-.b990orrq cfnoae'xq 9di nI .a^alaisiq ©rfd" ixdqj3 mid x^ be^aieqo eaeflleiyd 

^d-ncaiflw aa&'i;falb silj lo i^idgqira xtx ctlvEblll/*. itmH ni ^clll^nlsXq asxxl 

9dS lol ^Jnsi lol 0(J^^X$ lo mss »ri;t ai©ri^ sjjb asw 9^9dS &Bdi^ b»ml&lo 

eoalffienq »di lo noisaesaoiX bscisd-do 3lll:^^laX*^ .vXnX, bitfl «ia;Xi lo arictnoa 

ms^H ^eitkt fs. ^erfct ^siolei&dj^ tiasqq;; bXxrow &t baa ^S£^X ,8 ^aifgjJA no 

^rf;Jx£oo tisq 0^*''?'^^$ ^a jd^£i»i 'arf^nom e®^;t -^loo o^ b9lil:fa9 9i9n xedi 


but we find in the record a statement made to the court "by- 
defendants' attorney that plaintiffs were entitled to $2,839,86 
for rent due when Maypole took possession. The record does not 
show upon what basis counsel figured that amount due, but, in any 
event, the trial court allowed plaintiffs that amount, and, cer- 
tainly, they cannot complain of the amount allowed them. The 
trial court, after holding that $4,500 of the $5,000 paid by 
defendants to plaintiffs was a deposit, deducted $2,839,86 from 
$4,500 and allowed defendants upon their plea of set-off Judgment 
for the difference, $1,660,14, If we are right in holding, as we 
do, that $4,500 of the $5,000 paid was a deposit, plaintiffs have 
no cause to complain of the judgment. 

Defendants have filed cross-errors in which they contend 
that "the trial court erred in not entering judgment in favor of 
defendants on that part of their set-off for the value of the goods 
unlawfully taken possession of by the plaintiff, John Maypole." 
This contention is not seriously argued and the only case cited 
in support of the contention is not in point. Defendants' and 
plaintiffs' evidence shows that the goods in question are in the 
garage and that they have been used there in the garage business 
by John ilaypole ever since he took possession of same. It is clear 
from the evidence that Maypole acts for himself and Mayme E» May- 
pole, his wife, la a distress for rent proceeding, when judgment 
is in favor of the defendant, "he shall recover costs and have 
judgment for return of the property distrained, imless the same 
has been replevied or released from such distress," (111, Hev, 
Stat, 1939* chap* 80, sec, 25,) But in the instant case defendants 
did not seek, in the trial court, a return of the goods, but asked 
the trial court to enter judgment in their favor for the value of 
the goods. The trial court, under the evidence and the statute, 
was justified in refusing to allow defendants' request. 

The judgment of the Circuit court of Cook county is a 

just one and it should be and it is affirmed. 


Friend, P,J., and Sullivan, J,, concur* 

-f^rr -^eob b%ooei 9riT ,jt.iv,x. :«,®«a©q[ ioo5^ 9ioqxJS">M xxeiiw cirJ[> iaei not 
r. -^ ^stffc itwomB i^sii b&'w:&l1 Xasjot'oo aleisd i&£lv aoqis woriij 

^'Z' bimi 000^^1 mi:' '^^ '■'"'■^^H i&tii m^bl&d Tie^la ^i-woG l&i%i 

^nssagisut 1:'io-;faa 'i© seiq ''^[^©ild^ aoqjt/ g;tn»bc©lel> JbwroXXiS boA 00^^*4^ 

/ 3B ^3iii£)Xori a± Sili^ti bib sw II ♦■►i,Odd^X$ ^»tia«i9llll> ©ii;t tol 

-jfV^ -"'it^' .' ^-'■=:.-- isq 000,?$ ©dcT 1« 00^,H ^a^i^ *ofe 

^.uuv>essfciJt ad^ to jsieXqffios o;J ssi/so oa 

Jo lovi" . 3Xixi©vta9 d"Oii Jii bails Ji«oo XjsIi^ fMii" i&iii 

ei'oos 9xld- .lQ -jLir:^ ai.^ iol '5:tQ-d»« 'xXsiid' 'io i%&q iadd no 8d-n&6i«9l9i) 

".sXoq-^^ ud&T, ^md-cifiXq sxicf Tjct lo iiojfc«89«aoq aB%»i xlix/lv^laa 

b&ii.D OMBO \£jB,o 9iiS bum iJ^i^iB %lssioliee. cfoa al xioic^ii^Siioo aidT 

buB ^ aiiiBimal^Q ,ialoq aX ^o^ al xioiv^xis^jcipo exj;? "J© ^t'xpqqjja al 

mii aX 61& Kolias*! i'ooji ©ffe .li^feii^J' «wada aftfl©blv» «8l'tl;tflisXq 

aaB££laii<{ ogfi'iag aijj iii iji©d^ b&sv a»e<i oy&d •%&(ii 5jitl.J baa e^Artas 

ijiseXo til J I .90182 Ip JioleaeEeoq aloo;^ a£i 9&n±g i©v» eXoqxaia adoZ \d 

i^anis^i Mjs llBBmls' XoqxsM ^^siiJ soasblvs acU mo'tl 

Ui&m^hiJi jEtaxiv; ^anlbesooiq Jii£>i 'xQt nzeii&tb &> ml ^sliw aid «9loq 

^)a« ajtsoo isvi f^taBba&lBb 9tiS lo loval nl si 

,ve/i ,1X1) '-.Eeeid-sib rioij; oeasXsTk -so bsivsXqsi aeecf &ad 

a;t«fifi£j9'i'Sl: ixs^JaiSl a<I^ al ^ut . ,t)©e ^08 «q»xio ^^^^X ,iaiQ 

i>93i£.. oi/d ^iiuoca sjrU lo aix/;^©! js ^s-iuco lalii sa;t fll ,3i©»8 i'ea bib 

lo sxiXuv 'fl3ira8f)i;fj, ledtu© oS iiffoo Lalii edJ 

^e^fiKJsJa Q£i3 ba& ooaebtve- art;} istou ^dii/oo Xalid- aril ^aboog edi 

•Js»jjp©i ' ad-aafuiol:9l3 woJ.Xs o.t gislai/'iroi ax belllJ-ai/t e«w 

^- ioo jiooO lo Jttfoo cTJttfOilO axiW- lo ^asQaiai/t «*£! 


IM 367 



have been sustained by plaintiff wixile di'iving his automobile 
over a railroad crossing when his automobile was struck by a 
Diesel engine, with a caboose attached tliereto, belonging to one 
of defendants. Plaintiff was severely injured, and Steve Bolo, 
who was also riding in the automobile, was killed. Upon a 
former trial of the case plaintiff dismissed Indiana Harbor 
Belt Railroad Company, a corporation, from the ease. In the 
instant trial a Jury returned a verdict finding The Belt Railway 
Company of Chicago, a corporation, and The Atchison, Topeka & 
Santa Pe Railway Company, a corporation, defendants, guilty and 
assessed plaintiff *s damages at $6,400, Judgment was entered 
upon the verdict. One week after the entry of the judgment 
defendants filed a written motion to vacate the Judgment and to 
enter a judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict; 
also a motion in arrest of judgment, and a further motion for 
a new trial. Thereafter the trial court entered an order vacating 
the judgment and entered judgment for defendants notwithstanding 
the verdict of the jury, Haintiff appeals. 

No point is made as to the pleadings. 

The complaint charges, in substance, the following 
breaches of dutyi 

"(a) General charge of neglige nee | 

•♦(b) Failure to have bell of at least 30 pounds' weight 


.- .H 



■ A^\^ 


itfoYMJiAHNfjaa aHT 


b^'-' ■ ," 

. ir^ -f~-- I / 

A i 


■%OSs S 

■ ' "Ik 

,Y1H0OO 30G0 'i^ 

*TfiUO0 SHT 10 aOIKX'-iO iuiT OluiiiiVXaiia HAJHAQ& aOHWDTl .ilii 

4 Xd AosjtSz eaw GlidoiiroJ^i/s elrf asm sxilyeoxO isaoxilsT; « itrvo 
sscro oj- snlsiioled ^ocfo'ieiid' fc9dojB;J;}fl ©eoodiiO b iiJ-i:s ^ooisna iseojta 

.aSfii£>.«i&iq sii^J od ae afcaa si d^Gloq oH 

iXiab lo asrioBS^d 

or whistle rung or whistled by engineer or fireman at a distance 
of at least 80 rods from crossing and kept ringing and whistling 
until the said crossing was reached} 

"(c) Charges defendants with maintaining tracks for 
the movement of trains at crossing, which was an unusually 
dangerous and hazardous one; maintaining a flagman who failed 
to signal plaintiff on approach of the locomotive; 

"(d) Charges maintenance of unusually hazardous and 
dangerous crossing and failure to have safety gates, automatic 
wig-wags, flashers or bells for warning approaching traffic of 
the approach of trains; 

"(e) Charges operation of locomotive and cars at a high 
and dangerous rate of speed without timely warning of Its approach; 

"(f) Charges wilful and wanton conduct in the operation 
and management of locomotive and cars." 

The answer of defendant The Belt Railway Company of 
Chicago denies all of the allegations of negligence and damages 
and alleges that if plaintiff was injured "said injuries were 
proximately caused by the wilful and wanton negligence of the said 
plaintiff;" also denies possession and control of locomotive and 
"cars," !Hie answer of defendant The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Pe 
Railway Company denies all of the allegations of negligence and 
damages and alleges that if plaintiff was injured "said injuries 
were proximately caused by the willful and wanton negligence of 
the said plaintiff and his own reckless indifference to conse- 
quences and surrounding conditions and circumstances;" denies 
ownership, possession and control of the yerds, tracks and 

"The plaintiff's theory is that the defendants were 
guilty of negligence in the following particulars: 

"1, As to the crossing involved: 

"(a) Failure to adequately protect a hazardous and danger- 
ous crossing, heavily traveled by a main arterial highway, (Pulaski 


S«ild-3±dw Mb gixJtafiJti j^&/i cfl/B gale 2010 sao-xl sj^©*! 08 d"esel J"b lo 

\betlo&&i saw sal2 2oio 61^8 srl?^ ll:}tiss 

|svi:J-oa>oi>oI add- lo Ao&oiqqQ flo TSlcfflJtf.Iq Xaxtsic od 

lo clllsri* 3iiJ:ri3j8«nqfB giiisijiw nol allscf 10 citerieBll ,aaj8w-aJtw 

{stLtsid^ lo dosonqqa Micf 
xls^Jfi B ^s 8^BD iais svWoffiorioI lo flolJateqo segisriO (&)•♦ 
jrioBOTcqqs ad"! lo Sfllcraisw xXsail;? .tuori^J-lw b9s»qs lo ed-Bi aifoiPSii-s6 fc^xia 
aet^isisqo ?>di nt Sossbnoo aoiasm b&s Iwlllw esaieilO (1)* 

♦'.a^so feiiB evlcfotooool lo d-n»iB©§Bii«ffi JEjab 

lo '^r.qr.cO -^fiWllBfl d-IeS sfCT tnxifcn&l^^b lo i&wbob ©ifl' 

2©3effi»!> fens eonsgilgsn lo efiolitBselljB 9yil;t lo XXs BSlaab ©SBolifO 

aisvr asliirtul Mae" b»ix/tnl csw llWnXsXq iJt ^«xW- BfijtXIs f)flc 

felBS 9ficf 1© 9on©3±X3sn ftod-CfDW fifiuj Xl'IXXw »rfd- x<^ ib»txrB9 xXe^tsaXxoiq 

fjfi« ©vJtJ-ojsoooI lo Xoictfioo fass KOliaefeEBoq Eeisieb osXs ♦* illX;tiiXsXq 

©■^ sJcLsS fi s^sqoT ^jrtoaiflo^tA ©rfT J^nsbflslsfi lo newsiijg SirfT ♦♦.eiso" 

fi«ij ©MtsgJtXsen lo anoi:t ogstiX? 9jlcf lo XXs sehieb ^«qflioO -^swXXBff 

asXiiftfti btr^R" bfsivlut zbw lllSalBlq li ;teJrtc^ seasXXfi brw essJ^inA^ 

lo 90ii98xXs©n no;t£iBw fons XulXXln^ oxlif y^€ be^tssiO •^XsJsnixo'iq sisw 

-saifoo o& SfoaeieYilbni BtitisLtet two aid ba& llXJnlsXq blBZ &ii^ 

ttBlueb "^asdHBisfiUJoiio tm& BcoitXbooo snlBnifOtiua £>ns a»oneup 

bne ai^oB'i.; ^efiis'ij edJ lo XortJnoo feaa oolaseesoq ,q±il2i9frwo 


©10W aj-iisbxiRlsb sil;t i^add^ al y,io&sii a'lllifllsXq ©riT" 

jaifiXi/oi^'Jsq gnl^veXXol «ri:t nl ©ocssXXsan lo x^Xlirg 
ibsiyloval giilaaoio srict Oo aA .X** 
-'lo'^iib bnJB aimb^srisrl s d-c^^^oitq ^tXidijypsbis ocr f^inXlB^^ (i5>" 

Road - formerly Crawford Avenue) in close proximity to a parallel 
and equally heavily traveled arterial higiiway ( Archer Avenue) 

"(al) Total failure to install or equip with - 

"(abl) Safety gates; 

'•(ab2) Automatic wig-wags, flashers or bells - 
in violation of a common law duty to exercise ordinary care in 
view of the peculiar and particular physical facts and surrounding 
circumstances « 

"2. As to the operation of the train itself: 

"(a) Inadequate warning of approach of train and failure 
to comply with the statutory regulations with respect thereto," 

The following is defendants* theory of fact: "The plain- 
tiff did not make out a prima facie case because, disregarding any 
evidence of defendants, it is apparent to all reasonable mixids that 
plaintiff's own negligence caused the collision,'* 

Plaintiff strenuously contends that the trial court erred 
in entering a judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff 
for costs notwithstanding the verdict of the ^ury which found plain- 
tiff's damages at the sum of $6,40G| that jlaintiff made out a 
p rima facie case and that the court invaded the province of the 
jury in entering the instant judgment, A careful reading of the 
evidence satisfies us that plaintiff's contention is a meritorious 

In support of their contention that the judgment should 
be sustained defendants make the following points; 

"1, 'mere the evidence, with all legitimate inferences 
that can justifiably and legally be dravm therefrom, does not tend 
to show due care on the part of plaintiff, the trial court shoiad 
instruct the jury to retorn a verdict for the defendant; or, after 
verdict, it should grant defendants' motion for judgment notwith- 
standing the verdict, 

"2. In order for plaintiff to recover he has the burdea 

IsXlBiaq 3 oi tj? Jbilxo'ir' eaelo nt 'eirn-^'vA biol-^jsiO x;Iio«rio't - 6»oH 

- rlihi qlL'pe; 10 XlsJ-anl oS oiullal IsJoT (Is)" 

jas^^sa Ttd-sl^a (Ids)*' 

- si.. .-if.rf^ .It e2S^^'~i?±.- ol:t:^itio:';; . (Scfs)" 

81011.:- .... -_ - . ----- _- -_ ittlniBw ejjsjup9f)finl (b)" 

".ocl"S)'i@iij' ^O0c..;.v; iu+2w hel€>jl;^ bIu^bi xio^i^sjijaid. siid" iiJlw \Xqaioo oj- 

■..;^-.~-.'^, ...^.>'..... .^ J"JJO 9jLBm. ion bib HlXi 

illoo silct bsewfio oon&s±IS9a iiwo a*lll;Jn±aIq 

risiMiQloI) lo 'loviil al ;tB9jB§&i/[, b saliod^no xil 

' ■: -.*•:• I- ■■■'—' 9£Lj sniMsSaii '.':■"-" ■:;tEoc 10I 

'■'■" LjjaJtsXq Jorii^ ::/j of.i:lEl;t^,e aonsfilve 

• ano 

Ljnsjiic:, 'lo JioqqiJe nl 

I»ns;f d"Q« i._o-' 4Cu*iii:'-iriJ ii'.vB"ir Lci \IIa3sI bOB xXtisi'^XJjiXJt £iso d'idd' 
bijuoda w^uo; ^ ao sibc exfJb wode oi 

isitii abalm sl^snov-.. 

i nox.7ii;,-jn. 

bSjJ(x.i.& ./rii/ics^-- 

.^~iL_..^ ^.-;'4' n..^r ^j4 

.J. «4«5, !.*-««._ f/* <r,n*V M-Ar-t.'.i^ r»T C*» 


of proving that at the time of his injury he was free from negli- 
gence, which proximately contributed to the injury, 

"3, There may be such inherent improbability or negative 
quality in the testimony of a witness as to authorize a court t© 
disregard it, even though tiiere is no contradictory evidence by 
other witnesses." 

It appears, therefore, that defendants, to sustain the 
judgment, rely solely upon their contention that plaintiff failed 
to make ©ut a prima facie case that he was in the exercise of due 
cape for his own safety at the time of and just prior to the 

In a number of cases we called attention to the fact that 
some trial judges, in personal injury cases, are directing juries 
to find for defendants and are entering judgments non obstante 
veredicto in cases where plaintiffs had made out a prima facie 
case, and in an effort to stop this practice we have several times 
restated long-settled principles of law that should govern the 
action of a trial court in passing upon said motions. Neverthe- 
less, records continue to come before us wherein trial judges, in 
passing upon said motions, weigh the evidence and pass upon the 
credibility of witnesses. In the present case, the able lawyers 
for defendants by sheer persistence, alone, finally induced the 
trial judge to enter an unwarranted judgment, ht the conclusion 
of plaintiff's evidence defendants made a motion in writing for a 
peremptory instruction to find each of the defendants not g\iilty, 
and the motion was accompanied by a proper instruction. The trial 
judge, after argument, denied the motion and refused the instruction. 
At the conclusion of all the evidence defendants made their motion in 
writing for a peremptory instruction to find each of the defendants 
not guilty, and the trial court, after argument, reserved the ruling. 
After the jury had returned its verdict defendants moved for judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict and also moved for a new trial, Plaintifi 
moved for judgment on the verdict. The trial court, after argument. 


-ilss-n mo'i't soil asw 9d. xialat aln to se±i id^ ttk.'tMSt lolvo^q to 

©vio ;§sfl 10 ■^cJjtiidBCfoiqii'.J: jneidmJfc xloiia sd \&sn oisriT ,£" 

©J- d^Txroo B 9sJhLa£y^iris o^ 8« ee^nd^jw s to xnoirixic*^ arid' cl xill&up 

fisXiisl 'lIXialisLi iBdi aotiaeiaoo tletli aoqts \loloa xlhi ^inmi^tul 

oab le saloisxs esU ai e^iw sii ;tsxi;t sa bo ^lofil bmiIiq « cTwo aoUia od" 

©fi;}- oi 'loliq jaut bfis lo &jai-:t erid" ;}-b x^^lai mte aid aol »aao 

BslisJl gul^oeixi) »*iG ^asaeo Y'^J^t^i Isnoaieq ni ,a»abut Islii amos 

slosl agLt"!':: s ino nhi-^". bad aYtltoljalq ©Ttautw aeeao nl |0;/Ojtti9igrr 

ai£i;t aisvos blxfoxia d^Biid- wsX io aslqlooliq fcel^tiee-gfloX i)»JBJeo^ 

-Sff^isvsH ,Enoi:fottt fji^a noqj/ salHasq n± iiuoo i&lii s lo aoUo» 

tit ^asgfcx/t XbI'xJ nleiedw &sj siolsd aflioo oi ©iffiJtcfuoo &!yioo&i ^8891 

Sfid^ iioqu essq fans ssasblvs ©dit liglsw ^acoWofi bls& aoqjsr sulsaAq 

8i0x*''3-JC si da 9ild ^saao i-finsas'i^ ©x£;t nl .seeaeniJlw lo xi±Ilcf±I)eio 

fld^ fiooi/bnl \;IXjBiii:l ^efiols ,s?Ofls^a.l:aT:eq leerie x^ ^^OBbaol&b io1 

aolaulonoo 9At Sk ,inmt:^bjsl b9;ta&iiBvajj na ib&rb oi egisift Xe±*i;t 

& io1 axtlj jtTfy al aoliom a sfcsffi g;^!!^!^'^!©!) sonsbivs a'llX^tnlsXq lo 

^X^Jt-t£i3 ^on z:fsLzba&1&b sdJ- lo rfoa© bfill oJ ^ol:J^oxnc^a^l X'^co^Qosisq 

X/3i*i;t 9ilT »aoiiov*iSzal lecoiq o ^a f>y±nsqKOoos 2«iw ^oic^«n srid" f)«B 

ixoJt,toin^anl ©lii bacjL'lot fcn£ noxd-cm ©if;* b^ta&b ^ici&EW^is i^ila ^egfax^t 

X noldOK ritid^ ebaa a;tJt'5Jbn<^*3:eij eoc'sfiiv© BtfS Hb lo noXajyionoo end- iA 

ziafibtielBb ^t lo rioae vail oi noic^oirndani xiod'<I«»io<I s fo'i sixiif J^tnr 

SflXXxn orfd i>*-vi92f>i ^dnaau/gia isS^Ib ^J'lUoo Xslid^ «ii^ ba& ^xdX±if3 *ac 

necsfex/t io'2 be'vom adn^&nalofc d-oXbiav adl t)!:3ni0*©T bsd x-wl 9di letlk 

UrIbL^ »L&Xii *en a 'lol bcvcac oaXiS ba& *oli)isv «itt sBliBS»*|Hl*Jbpir;tan 



denied defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto 
and entered judgment upon the verdict. A week later defendants 
filed a written motion to vacate the judgment; to enter a judgment 
in defendants' favor, notvd.thstanding the verdict; also a motion in 
arrest of judgment and for a new trial, and thereafter the trial 
court vacated the judgment and entered a judgment in favor of 
defendants notwithstanding the verdict of the jury. It appears 
from the record that upon a former trial of this case Judge Irude, 
at the conclusion) of plaintiff's evidence, denied motions of defend- 
ants for a peremptory instruction to find them not guilty* 

In Illinois Tuberculosis Ass'n v . Springfield Marine Banlu 
282 111, App, 14, the court was called upon to pass upon a content 
tion that the trial court erred in not entering a judgment for the 
defendant notwithstanding the verdict of the jury. The court said 
(pp. 25, 26): 

"At common law, a judgment non obstante veredicto could 
only be entered when the plea conl*essed the cause of action and 
set up matters in avoidance of the cause of action which were, 
even if true, imiiiaterial and did not constitute a defense to the 
action. It is a judgment for the plaintiff on the pleadings be- 
cause the pleas ©f the defendant do not present a defense. It 
was only rendered on the application of the plaintiff, and was 
never allowed on motion of the defendant, Puterbaugh's Common 
Law Pleading, sec, 1103* 

"It is provided however by sec, 68, par, C3)a* ot th© 
Civil Practice .^ct, Cahill's Rev. St, 193:, ch. 110, par. I96, 
that at the close of the testimony either party may request the 
court for a directed verdict and that the court can reserve its 
decision thereon, ahd submit the case to the jury and after verdict 
may hear arguments for and against such request and if the court 
shall decide as a matter of law that the party requesting the 
directed verdict was entitled thereto, the court siiall enter its 
decision on the record and order judgment in accordance with such 

p ^oli> yigv pirLaJBCiO nog ita^m^btsl ^ol aoi:f(m » ed-HBfiaelofs bejfcnsb 

^neuaixiQ 3 cts^n® oj i^tneeiaij^'t '^'^^ oJ' oi noxtoc nad-^tii^v a belli 
at aoiiom b onis j^olfoisv edO' aniJbfiad^ arf^ Iwd-oft ^lovsl » ft:tflal)n9l9fe fli 

lo iovjejI ai iaem'^bul & b&i®in& bus itnafiis^i^t ^^^ bscfsojav ^ixfoo 

^sfeff^i' S36J/G aaao aMi lo Xai^^ Ttefitio'i b fl^qif ;?«rf;J^ baocai eil;t biotI 

. _ , , , Ma.^ ^g ^liqc, . y £1*81$ A &£HoliJ0 i9(Stfl ie.i.oallll nl 

-^rtcjiioo .J jaoqii- aaaq oJ- aoqss beXl&ti saw ;rYjaroo ©itJ ^^1 ,qq^ ,111 £8S 

eyi;^ 'lot &£ihsrsbisl b i^li^im vton al b©Ti« 5i«os ialrt;? ajl^ iedi nol;^ 

:(dS:; ,^S .qq) 
^^o^ 9.j^^j ;^9iev sd'fi^^o^atio nog ;taatasbxft « ^'v^bI noiaiEOO ;JA" 

^&iaw xfoliii? floJ-jOo lo sai/eo od^ lo soa^feiovs iil aTs;td'sflt qu i9B 
Qdi oS 9Rao1&b & »;^jj;ti;J-fiixoo toti bib Ms lBl' ^&sjiS It n^v© 
-Jd es^tlZxBsIq ©rid" no I'^-l^JuJtalri ©dc? ixA &a(sm:gbai & ejt ;JI .nol:J-ofl 

«8w bae ^11 i;;tniBXq sdi lo fioI;Ji3DlIqq» SfiS- am boasbn*^ \Iflo a aw 

^d^I .•£&« ^OJLj: ♦4© ^Li^l .JS ,v»K a»XIMaO ,;J-a4 &Silt!oat^ X2vx3 

si"! av'ieaei ««© ;j1jO«3 ©jtW ,i-»ruj- bMut -J^XbiBv bt^'^&ilb a ntol iiuoo 

.5 It/OS ©iW It f»ts ^«®i;p©ii jBioife :^,a/3(ifis« btia lol «;ta9fliwaiB ibbiI xbk 

edi 8ni^e©»pai \;J«iisq ftrfcT J-«ct* w©i to -laJ^effi a as ^btosb XXsrfe 

e;fX 'ie:tiX€i XXarie iiiseo edi ^oy^t^d^ bsli^tiaB esw ^olb'isv b9;J'o«ill) 

— o-» 

decision notwithstanding the verdict. This provision of the Civil 
Practice ^iCt changes the common law rule and permits either party 
to move the court for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, 

"The court in passing upon the motion must decide, as a 
matter of law, that the party requesting the directed verdict is 
entitled thereto. This provision of the Civil Practice Act takan 
in connection with Rule 22 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme 
Court which provides: 'The power of the court to enter judgment 
notwithstandii^ the verdict may be exercised in all cases where, 
under the evidence in the case, it would have been the duty of the 
court to direct a verdict without submitting the case to the jury, • 
requires the court to be governed by the same rules in passing upon 
a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as govern it 
in passing upon a motion for a directed verdict. The trial court 
in passing upon this motion has no more authority to v/eigh and deter- 
mine controverted questions of fact under the Civil Practice Act 
than under the Practice Act of 190? . Capelle v. Gtilcago & N. W. 
Ry. Co.. 280 111. App, 471." 

In Valant v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.. 302 111. App, I96, 
the court said (p« 204): 

"Under the authorities above discussed, we are of opinion 
that under the evidence, the question of whether there had been an 
impersonation of Kazlmer Valant by another was, in the first in- 
stance, a question for the jury, and therefore the court erred in 
entering judgment for plaintiff, notwithstanding the verdict. On 
such a motion [motion for judgment for plaintiff notwithstanding the 
verdict], the court is not authorized to weigh the evidence. Bovda 
Dairy C o. v. Continental Casualty Go>. 299 111, App. 469 j .Vhlte Y^ 
City of Belleville. 364 111. 577 j McNeill v. Harrison & Sons. Inc.. 
286 111, App, 120, But if there is any evidence tending to support 
the defense, the case must go to the juryj and if the court is of 
opinion that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by a preponder- 
ance of the evidence, it is his duty, under the law, to set aside the 

IJtviD srfJ lo noieivoiq axxli.' .^axfe-iav sfld- 8iiifens;i^ailJlwooa nciaioeJb 
fi as ^Bbto&b tzsm siolJom ^A^ xioqfj gELtaaaq at :iiijoo ©riT" 

eissTtgjra ©ild^ lo sol;? SSI'S "io &&JLaii erfJ- lo SS »X»a rfctlw nojt^ooxxiioo nl 
d-cetssfyBt is^ae o* dieoo ©riJ- lo tewoq swiT* ««©folvoiq ilolriw ^nuoO 
^9iaiiw 898B0 Ii;i ai ]3©aJ:oi9X9 scf -^jaeE d-oifeiev »ff.d' suliacLG^JaxI^lwd'on 

edi lo x^£f£> sri;^ usscf evoti bluwf tX ,»eso ©d^t al »»ii©hi:vs oxW istov 

i'l n'isvog 8B joito'ijjv 9fld^ 3aJtiaaBd^Kri;Jlw;fofl Jasssfijat » lol JioiiJ'oja jb 

^ixjoo Xaiiit sril ,itoiMs>v bs^sstrijb a la'i sutlixm s aoqv jolaasq nt 

-•iod-«>5 anB rigiow ocl xil-iosiiii^ sioai on aafl aol:^oa ttdS xioqw jolaaaq Hi 

SoA sdsiitoBi*! XiviO sxid^ isiaaxr tosl lo aaoXd-eei/p l>«:?'isvoi;tnoo eaXst 

, ,.W .,a[ ^ o^^^oxtilj, ,>y ajlX^g-ay .V<^VX lo ;JoA ©oi^OB-fi oii^ ^sfjim .flaif;f 

'M^-^ .qqA .XXI 08S ^.oO .itfl 
^«^ei .qqA ax I sot 4ufiO^Ml-»lM.-Afi^llMP5l^a_,vJS8i4V al 

3 (AGS ,q) i>i38 cfutfoo edi 

noiaiqo "3^ bib mi ^h&&&iit>&Xb svocfjs anXili9diS3& 6d& letxiW* 

aa n&Q<S b&d 9*iBd^ isii^edw lo aol&&&t{p edi ^©oasfelva ari^ isiiiii:; ^adi 

-•^al tsiifi 9f£;^ ni: ^sbv/ ^erid-on^ -^cf ^nsXaV ieKl&6:i lo golJacoannHf 

fLt f)9i'i9 d^'iuoo orid- oioleieri^ bos tXi^t «^^ "^ol oolJ-asjjp s ^ttSCL^a 

xiO ♦^oJtlJiov .'ri:? •^aifeix£;taiiJlvifcfofi ,llWnl«Xq "lol ^tn^iusbiJl; ^atieias 

9di ^tba^^^zdilmiiHi '^illQalBlq, lol tasts^hiJi lot noii^oifl] iio±:fo® js riojLfe 

^y.. P^M' t^^^-f^ •<2<i'^ •XII fi^^ ,.qC x^4,^uiiiiZ'> X«;tmmi::^fioG «▼ .o O tTci^q 

.,>OfiI ,31^8 ^ fl08i::£T^^"i ^v 4^-i#,0Jft -TO aXI *dt jt*idyvoIXeajtjo J^IO 

j-'ioqqj*B oJ anXfiae^ saceJolvs tjos eX sisd^ Ix d-ufi" .OSX •qrrA «XXI d8s 

lo ai :i'UJOG 9dS Ix bna ;"\C'iir(; 9di od^ og tecin ȣso odi ^Qza&leb Bdi 

-ne^oq.onq a x^ b^at&ieu^ ion ^i X'^H 9^^ "^o *oXbi«v eiW d'Bxfd' XLOlnlqo 


verdict and award a new trial," lf?e might cite a number of other 
cases to the same effect. 

As the power of the court to enter a judgment non obstante 
veredicto can only be exercised ih a case where it would have been 
the duty of the court to direct a verdict, we will again state the 
well-settled rules that govern a trial court in passing upon a 
motion to instruct the Jury to find for a defendant ♦ 

"»"A motion to instruct the jtiry to find for the defendant 
is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and the rule is 
that the evidence so deiaurred to, in its aspect most favorable t* 
the plaintiff, together with all reasonable inferences arising 
therefrom, must be taken most strongly in favor of the plaintiff « 
The evidence is not weighed, and all contradictory evidence or 
explanatory circumstances imist be rejected. The question presented 
on such motion Is whether there is any evidence fairly tending to 
prove the plaintiff* s declaration. In reviewing the action of the 
court of which complaint is made we do not weigh the evidence, - 
we can look only at that which is favorable to appellant. Yess v. 
Yess^ 255 111. 414; McCu^e v, ReyQQ^.^^^ ^88 id. 13Q; Llovd v> 
Rusch. 273 id. 489." ( Hunter v, Troup. 315 111. 293, 296-7. )« 
( Mahan v, Richardson. 284 111. App. 493, ^95.) 

"'The general rule is that negligence and contributory 
negligence are questiozis of fact for the Jury, and so long as a 
question remains whether either party has performed his legal duty 
or has observed that degree of care and caution imposed upon hia 
by law, and the determination of the question involves the weighing 
and consideration of evidence, the question must be submitted as 
one of fact, ( Chicago. St. Louis and Pittsburg Railroad Co. v« 
Hutchinson. 120 111. 587; Austin v. Public Service Co.. ante^ p. 
112.) Before we can say, as a matter of law, that there was n* 
negligence on the part of the defendant or that there was such 
contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff as to defeat 
recovery, we must be able to say that all reasonable minds must 

t&rlio lo ^sBdmua & sito ;Jxl§i« 9^< ** ,l»£i$ wea b bimisi fine ;J^o±l>'i«v 

afiXel-: j a©©neio"ini; eldij&aoa&si lla d:^Xii i9cL}9^oi ^1ttial&l(i 9tit 

to saneJolv© Xio^uifcaaJnoc lis ba& ,6ail8l©w iioc el »aa8l)iT9 silT 

i- 90iis£>lv6 Y«« al eisrf^t larf^adw aJ: noid^ora jcJojjs no 

nt/*>iv«»'i III ^nolis'i&l^Bb a ' lli^aiislq adit «\'onq 

oa ob 9w efesK eJt ^nlalqasoo iioMm Ip J"xifoo 

-^ ., .^ j-jfiitovii't Bl xlcliiw ;JBifct iR xSmo jLoqI aso ©ff 

'^-^ -'-' '^''^- t^i}ip,S7:?.^^ «v,9iQtJ0oM •^M•^ .III Ic^S f^8&eY 

'." SB SJttoJ ' ixi'iift ^ " "^ *!5al lo »flpJ:^8$up a-is eoyaegllaen 

x.Ji-..i' Ibb"'' -•>.-- q Tiejcl^tiB g:axli'©xivr anlacisi noid-eai/p 

an*:""'' ' '•-'■* ■■-■'■-•-'■ --^■^--^■.^ r^-" -3 aoti^alaiQi^b »iU fcos ^wsi xrf 
- i- •> -80iis>X)lv; "lO aojtd^.iisl)iEiioo b&B 

„..»jL^>>.> v,.o-'i.,fe--' ;.tJ^v^:-vt^A-,. vi^ aA^Q?t?,.„*f^^ ,fti>;^,i§^iT4S) **s>st lo ftiio 

©It a/j« .;'..'a-. ■ ■ ' ■ ^ ' j-fiffl s aj3 ^vaa £i«o ^;i ffiolsfi (.SII 

dtiii-i. J. a J 'xo >;xu>m®ls>5 Bdi lo iti&q^ ®ii^ ixo saxiegilson 


agree that the defendant was not negligent In his acts or that the 
injury was the result of plaintiff's own negligence.' ( Fetro v. 
I^-nes ^ 299 111. 236, 240. See, also. Pollard v. Broadway Central 
Hote;|, Corp,, 353 111. 312, 32^, 323.) 

"•ivhether a plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence 
is ordinarily a question of fact for the jui-y to decide under proper 
instructions. It becomes a question of law only when the evidence 
is so clearly insufficient to establish due care that all reasonable 
minds would reach the conclusion that there was contributory negli- 
gence. (Thomas v. B uchanan^ 357 111. 27Gj Mueller v. Phelps, 2^2 
^^^ 630 J O'RouTKe V. Sproul, 241 id, ^7^.) A motion to direct a 
verdict for the defendant preserves for review only a question of 
law whether froia tlie evidence in favor of the plaintiff, standing 
alone and when considered to be true, together with the inferences 
which may legitimately be drawn therefrom, the jury might reasonably 
have found for the plaintiff. (Bro£hy_x>.. niinois Steel Co.. 242 
111. 55; City of Chic ago v. JarviS j 226 id, 614.) 'm cannot weigh 
the evidence to determine, as a matter of fact, whether the plain- 
tiff was guilty of contributory negligence, ( Dukeman v. Cleveland^ 
Cincinnati. Chicago and St. Louis :iailway Co. j 237 111. 104,) and 
we cannot reject testimony as improbable unless it is contrary to 
some natural law. ( 2etsche v. Chicago^ Peoria and St. Louis Railway 
Q2Mf 238 111, 240, )« ( Ziraldo v. Lynch Co. j 365 111. I97, 199-200.)" 
(Thomason v. ChiCug o liotor Coach Co^ ^ 292 111, App. 104,, 110, Ulo) 
In the celebrated case of Libby. McNeill & Libby v. Gook|. 
222 111, 206, the court said (p, 213): "Evidence fairly tending 
to prove the cause of action set out in the declaration may be 
the testimony of one witness only, and he may be directly contradictec 
by twenty witnesses of equal or greater credibility; still the motion 
must be denied, and if a verdict for the plaintiff follows, the 
question whether it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence 
Is for the trial court upon mot on for a new trial, and, in the 
event of that motion being overruled and a judgment entered, for 


J J^iiXui 'ii-' cJ 

ii-— x^at»ti .j-^ll. c. 

ru ^LXti ^ 


i9qoiq I'^bnti sbJto 

B iOQI.1 

1o n«l;f; 

,:)t^ .III e^s ^amfH 

" " ;: )iJB9iJp B xJ-xiiiiiXiJio sx 

:iOi7c;c; : ; ; ' 'I ,anoiioiJ'tiaal 

':Idfac)-8e oJ- Jxiiixoxriijani x-t.iseXo 08 ai 

o-iGiiJ^ J-jsiii iioiax/Ioaoo aci»t jciofssi bjjjow abuJtiB 

.III ^^£ ( fjMgfe f . SBsip^) .sonas 

:; lovol ni ©oiiftbiv© 9dt moll i&AtBfivi W£,l 

aooneielnx esiJ ri^Iw lexi^ssovt ^&tn.i ©«f od^ beisblEnoo xxe£i«r Bns snoXs 

^IdBXioasei ^lislm \ix;{, orlsiQd:} aw&tb 9rf xle;tjsfiil;tls©l xjbjh rfoidw 

S-^S ..oO l eej-a ej;pfii;lil ♦v i^rigo'i . Ictnialq ©ri;f lol bimol svaif 

rfSlQw ;^Qa(. . . dSil ^exv'^jou .v Q ,ni3oirlO lo Y.itO i^^ .III 

-.fii.?.' ^Biilcii»iab oi oon&blve odi 

^baalsiy&x'J .v amiSAisKi) ^eoiissxlasn x^o^ucfliitHoo lo xiltirg ten -YlJW' 

fens ( 4^1 . V '.'£ ..oO Y awIlwK alp p j .:fS bag o ^soix'O itX: t3ngl ontD 

(•OOS-e^X ^^^X . ,,oC ^iofii^g,^ oJ^A^ii^ ) '(.O^S .XXI 8£S ,j^ 

(•IXX 4 oil <t , . ...oC fioaoC lo^oM oai::-o.tjdD .v xtoaxsinoriT ) 

.4900 ,v Yd tllJ >:. IXxeHaM f -s;cfcf.LI "' )e;ti5T;cf9X©o SidJ- Hi 

SUtbfie^ ^jX^isI oonoiL' , ;c^ ^60£ .III SSS 

9<f TfaH noiJsiflloeb srl:f ni Jtfo J 02 aotit^i^ to bbuao exi:f «voiq o^ 

iolbaiiaoo xlioe'il ^\:lno eeen;?!*' ©«o lo Y^orWescf 9d;t 

oxcTofij siiJ ill iSeesii^JX'/r Vfl*^^ X<^ 

eoflsbXv o :rri3l?^v 9x{d^ ^anXijaa TCX^asliriBCi ax iX lexfiarfvf noXJ-aeifp 

erid^ itX ^biiB ,X»ii;f wea e nol fiO!d-02i noqjir -jTUyoo XbXi^ sricf nol ai 


the Appellate Court upon error properly assigned," 

As bearing upon plaintiff's contention that at the time 
aiiid place in question he was in the exercise of ordinary care for 
his own safety, we find that there is evidence tending to prove 
the following facts: On January 14, 1936, about 5»30,, after 
darkness had set in, plaintiff was driving his automobile north on 
Crawford avenue (Pulaski road)e Crawford avenue runs north and 
south* The first track he approaehod was the track of the Belt 
Railway Company, a single track, where the accident occurred. This 
track runs southv/est sJid northeast across Crav/ford avenue. About 
125 feet north of this track and parallel to it are the double 
tracks of the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, About 250 
feet north of these tracks is a highway. Archer avenue, that runs 
northeast and southwest and intersects Crawford avenue. Archer 
avenue parallels the track of the Belt Railway Company and also 
the tracks of the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, Traffic 
on Archer avenue and on Crawford avenue was heavy at the time of 
the accident. The nearest street light to the place of the accident 
was an arc light on th- aoutheast corner of Archer avenue. There 
was a red light stop sign at the Archer avenue intersection. As 
one approached the track of the Belt Line Hallway GompaD^ there 
was no reflector or any kitnd of warning sign, no automatic wigwag 
or flasher of any kind. There was a crossing sign seven feet south 
of the south rail of the track and twelve feet to the east of the 
east edge of Crawford avenue. On the crossarm of this crossing sign 
there was at the time of the accident a kerosene lantern with a 
red bull's-eye light lens. This light had only a five-eighth* 
inch high kerosene wick. There was smoke on the inside of the 
lantern and dirt on the outside and the light could not be seen 
until a person approached v/ithin three or four feet of the post 
upon which the lantern was hanging. All along the pavement at the 

place of the accident there were weeds growing thickly and which 

",I)Qn8l£aB xLieqoiq 107.19 aoqu J-nroO scfallsqqA ^:t 

svoiq 0^ sni-oncsj- eoa? 9i9ri:t i&dS ball sv/ ^-^^liia jfwo bIxI 

no xl;JiOx ':ini:>:;Iq ^al lea b.srf 2 89rD(iB5 

&ni5 jrflioi lOlwsiO k(buoi -Jbl a sli:^'^ ) wrnsve biotvstO 

Slen. &si. .ioBOiqqii ad 3lo»il J-Riil erfT ,ri^i;o2 

aixfi' ,b9iiiiOQo ia&bioi /AOBii Bl^ata & ^TcneqiHoO XBirllBfl 

^iro , j-aissfttion &jib j^sswriiiraa aimi afosicf 

O^S . lodififi Bnslfcnl erf* lo ejCOsii- 

aaijz iBtlt ^'^j ! <^ , i aiiSisiJ ©aexfJ lo ri;fion ^eel 

i&do- „ aio&s'xoiaX fcas ;f3€>wflcfi;oE baa i&B&dii(iM 

oalB 6a'- v.a r^qifoO y;r,--^rllBF. d"!^? erfj- ">o iosrct edi elsIlBiaq duneva 

oi'^i'i^ , nol bnl @ili lo caldsl^ »ri^ 

■ ' bxie exfCsvB lefloiA no 

iasblooi^ bAj lo eo£. 'srr ^T ,ia9bi.oo& 9Ai 

aiofiT .oijnevfi irrfc :t^rf:tsTO:: rid- no Irigll otb as 8bw 

.nolio&c : jie qo;ta cJ'rfslI fcei b sbw 

sisrfct YnjaqffioO \»r>It6f eai - ,/6i5i:^ «iiJ fcirrioso^qqa Wio 

■5Bwp.J";r cWr.rnoitxjc on ^n?.!" rnL-r .V ... ; -lo lotosllei on 8bw 

. xiJtii ■'jfifl iO leifaBll io 

exic^ lo : . _ . . •. . :iij lo IIbI xljjjoe siftt lo 

-■•'-' -^- - ..., oifiiwf 3d:i )s 3 aw eieriJ- 

«It;fri3Jt9-s^>_.. . ,„„ „„,,. _.. . -rr crrisil ar^e-e'IIi/cf bsi 

9x11 lo -^LT-i^nf ■^rT.i rrn ?v),ViP.ip p ^-uir c>tm ....-xiv ©n©aoie2l xl§lf{ xionl 

xiesa .. «u..-.,«u sifl no lilft 5iib iiisliiBl 

laoq axil Ic ilWl-A bsjfoBOiqqB xioai&q b Ilctnx; 

eril is irrc/r.-v ::o^ . ..... .^..xigfls.r? - --^ ri^fnAl ddi doldff floqjJ 

ildlxiv/ biUi \ljiOlixJ iiaJnsoas aibeew siew t»^»iij lneI)li>OB sxtt lo soslq 


stood six to seven feet high at the time of the accident. Through 
the weeds one could see only about one length of rail, about 7^ 
feet, to the east. Plaintiff at the time of the accident was 
unfamiliar with the place in question. As he was driving north 
he saw the red light stop sign at the Aacher avenue intersection 
and slowed down for that intersection, and locking to the right and 
left he saw all kinds of lights going up and down Archer avenue, 
"red lights, big lights and high lights, saw all kinds of lights." 
WasiJi he saw the cross-erm railroad warning sign he was within twelve 
or fifteen feet of it and he stepped on his brake to still further 
slow down for the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company's tracks, 
the double tracks, and he did not become aware of the existence ©f 
the single track, the Belt Line Hallway track, where the accident 
occurred, until the front wheels of his automobile crossed the first 
rail of that track, at which moment he was hit by the locomotive* 
He did not see the kerosene lamp hanging on the cross-arm nor did 
he see nor hear the engine before it hit him. One of defendants' 
witnesses testified that he did not hear a bell or whistle until 
after the crash; and tliat although he had passed the place of the 
accident several times at night, he never noticed the lamp burning. 
It was shown that tliis witness, who was following plaintiff just 
before the accident occurred, stated at the coroner's inquest that 
he first saw the engine when it was fifty feet awayj that he was 
familiar with the crossing and that after one passes the crossing 
sign he has but four or five feet to go until he hits the first 
rail of the track involved in the accident, Another witness testified 
that the latter witness had to swerve his car off the road to avoid 
being struck by the engine. There was also evidence that "the beam 
of this locomotive as it would coxae from the northeast going southwest 
was the same direction that the lights of motor vehicles on Archer 
Avenue vvould shine if they were coming from the northeast going 
southwest," A witness testified' that the sound of the warning on 
the engine was like a bus horn. There is evidence for defendants 



^ .;. ..... Xiio ssa LIjjoo ©iio afesew Btit 

^iiiog sd-dgiiX to afenl> lis wbs ©ri ^^eX 

^^^£^11 ;■' ' : bna a:fil|ll aid juS^tilgXX fe««" 

iij' a. :'a ©d fenr; :^i 1o ^sel nescflll no 

^2:}i0si:f K'Vii^H-'-OJ b^oillwh Jis?., locfijBH aaalbnl oi'J lol awob woXa 

1o ootiQi&i.::® srid" lo ©naws 3flioo9cf ;Jqn f)lJ!> eri bUB ^ajloeij- eXdtfofc 04^ 

^uofilooa 9ri^ eiariw ,^Diii;f XawXlfif efliJ cM'^a: f)di ,ji06i;t eXanla 9xl;t 

^ts'ixl oii:i fjesaoio ©X±tifo£KOv*i;jB aiil lo sXseriw cfnoil eif^ Ix;;S"nJU ^beinuooo 

.©vid-ofijioco: ■;:' 86W ©rf ^tnofiiom rfoiilw ;?;;; ^ifDrii:!- ;tBd;t lo XXjbi 

bib 'ioa ffi'Xjs-<-£o'.i.C/ g*w ao §fii:g«BXl qsiBX ©ussoisjI erl^ 992 ^on bXb sH 

» e^tna&aslsf) lo enu .fijJbrl c^Jtd ^i sio'led ©aJtaa© ariit naeri ?«[ix ede sd 

dswoiril ,;tn"? 

a.olioezt.®int suae 

^eiiiiev ' -'■■■ 
■"«8MSlI i^^ ^: ■: 

'\'L&ni aid:: ' 

Itisw eliBlsi'.. 
ed'J lo eo: ..' 
.anXnoiicf qai&l 

fatJl llJ:d-ax»Xq gnxwo. 


bXOVfi Oo bbOv. 

i£«»Gf 911:^'* jl^&d^ sctfic 

on bib ©xi ctarl^ tsllld'ss^ egeasnd'l.v 
-*ii xlgfjoiid-XB cfiulc^ £>a.Q ixlEBio exlcT ried-lB 

, . ia^bloHB^ ed^ •lo'iocf 

i noriv/ ©fiXsn© sxiJ^ was :f8"xil ©ri 

aaXiisp'ip Bdi ri^lw liixXXiajsl 

of afiri eri fljle 

lovxil 3iosTj;;J Sif;t lo Xlai 

. . .: .-: Ssdi 

.snisas ©ri;J X^ jfox/nJ-e ^ixXscf 

xJ-oaioooX atdJ- lo 

lioiii lb sisse 9rict eflw 

flo e^Jtxri ;v iL- ^o jiuo.. o£W ;tjBrid- baIlX;:^aod- sasn^i ' ,^8©wri:J-uo2 


that shoTfS clearly that the day following the accident defendants 
placed plain warning signs south of the Belt Line Railway Company's 
track, where the accident occurredj that one of the signs was a 
"tall one with the automatic flasher." i 

It is unnecessary for us to cite all of the facts relied 
upon by plaintiff's counsel to support tholr claim that plaintiff 
made out a prima facie case, as the able lawyers for defendants. 
In an effort to sustain the judgment, are forced to argue, in their 
brief, as to the weight of plaintiff's evidence and that his wit- 
nesses lack credibility. Indeed, they close their brief with the 
following statement: "**-»• there was no credible evidence in the 
whole case to show that plaintiff used due care for his own safety." 
(Italics ours,) In arguing that we should disregard certain evi- 
dence, defendants state: "A premium vould be placed on dishonesty 
and error if trial courts and Appellate Courts were denied the right 
to examine and appraise the internal quality of testimony." Defend- 
ants' counsel devote pages in their brief to an analysis of the evi- 
dence of plaintiff, and they argue tiiat it is filled with contradic- 
tions, improbabilities, discrepancies and omissions; that it con- 
tains vdthin itself its own impeachment; that plaintiff gives two 
accounts of the manner in which the acciaent happened; that any 
reasonable analysis of the many contradictions in his story leads 
to the conclusion that he did not look at all as he approached the 
tracks. The plain purpose of the argument is to destroy the probative 
value of plaintiff's testimony. This argument would be pertinent 
and proper if we had before us a question as to whether the verdict 
of the jury was against the manifest weight of the evidence. John 
Bonney, a police officer of Chicago asiiigned to the Accident Preven- 
tion Division, was an important witness for plaintiff. He testified, 
inter alia , that he came to the place of the accident within fifteen 
minutes after it occurred; that he was going north on Crawford avenue 
as he approached the place of the accident} that the only "signal" 

,iBZ&Boemm el :tl 
llivTn ad- fflXElo ^xoiU jfeqq; ?ra3tj» a * Itll^nlBlq -^cf aoqu 

Sly ii:il:: '>::!'. J •TI^V'.:i -^aolo t®^* ,3^«#&al .xtilidlbeio Usal assasa 

adJ $.1 S0GsZ)i:va : oft a&^ e' -:n5ja«>^«^s alllvfollol: 

^^tialr.g g«o 31x1 -J^^j: ^•ibo exfJb tesjg 'XltSali^.Xq ts^^ wc^^ pi saso slotfy 

TCi'af»fl:orl?,i& no beo&lq i)(i 5Ij;o f ajjlaeif: nsfcriBlsfe ^sanafc 

-bssl&u ".Ynot o x^ll ^'P Lsnzetat arW ©alj»as:qxj bfis cnlfiiiix© oJ- 

otbiii:in 3'i-.-, ^adct fiias ,1:ll;talBXq lo ©onsb 

-fioo iiolaalr.; lorijiqfiioell) ^RSld'Hicfscfonqinl ^ertold" 

i;tJll^Ii ; 'fio^'iQqiBl mo eil llascM nlxicTlw bhIb^ 

c:.txi nt aaojtt&lbsi:faoo y^im Bd& 'lo alBxX^ixs eldimoaaei 

sdi £)9xi060iq'- oX J-on biJb sri i.siy' noisul&noo ©rid- oi 

:d-sdotq »ff.* x©"^^?'- J-nexKHBis ©iicJ' lo ©eoqiJiq nlaXq eilT ,S3ioj5i;t 

.^tnsn: ci'rtBetf/'^'ss a Ml .-^enotdcfsei as'lllifnlfilq to ©xxIbv 

;foibisv GiiJ- •:[&rij; vi:d"a©xfp i.ol®d feadi sw 11 'leqoiq £»flB 

Offot .sonsfalv) ^rit lo Jrlgicv; jasllns^i f»n:t ctajRlags sbw x^tJ^t ®^ii to 

•nevsT'i j-nsJMf;- oj- bsualca^ os«Ojti , joil'io ©Dlloq b ^x^^^o^ 

J9lll,taf. . .l'3:l:)'nf:s!l'> lot as»a*lw iastt'ioqsil ob ajivr ^noxalvia noli 

i»9*tlt filfWlw ixi'i y/3Xq sxli oi sraeo exf ^srii tfl yflilfl f^ P^ 

Jiisvij 6iot?i -lO ceo xli'ion -.^alo^ sbw eut! i*jrij ■ ibsTiijcoo il iq^Ib eoii;nlci 

"Xani^la" xXno sild- iiiriJ- jineMoos e/fi lo £'r^'sXq fixut bsriosoiqqs 9x1 as 


he found was a keresene lantern with a red bull's-eye light in 
itj that the lens of the lamp was two and a half inches to three 
Inches in diameterj that the condition of the lens was smolsy; 
that he walked over to the post where the lantern was suspended 
to see if it was burning and tiiat he came within three or four 
feet of the lantern before he could tell ..hether it was burning 
or not; tiiat darioiess had fallen at the time and travel on Archer 
and Crawford avenues was continuous; that "tliis old crossing signal" 
at the tia» of tlie accident was api^roximately seven feet south of 
the south line of the first railroad track and tv/elve feet east 
of the eastern edge of Crawford avenue; thut as you approached the 
track from the south there Wc,s no reflector or any kind of sign 
there, no automatic wigwag or flasher of any kind; tliat he had 
noticed the condition of the lantern prior oo the night in question, 
that sometimes it was clean and sometimes it was dirty; that the 
land that the track in question ran through was filled up vdth 
weeds; that at the time of the accident "they varied as high as 6 
feet high;" that "they were fairly dense*" In seeking to destroy 
the probative effect of Bonney's testimony defendants state that 
Switchman Gibson testified that he could plainly see the red light 
on the cross-arm some 200 feet or more back northeast; that wit- 
nesses Zak and Kirby stated that the lens was not dirty or dusty; 
that Kirby stated that he saw the lens when he was about 100 feet 
away from it. Counsel argue that Bonney's testimony is not 
"entirely reliable" because the lamp was produced at the trial 
and it was shown by actixal measurement "to be a 5~iiich lens with 
curvature and 4-3/4 across." Counsel further state: "But, more 
important than this, when we consider the amazing story that Bonney 
told regarding the taking of 4 photographs by him next day after the 
accident, we may doubt whether he is a credible witness at all. 
He was asked to produce or account for the films. He said that 
he had his camera open too much and that the pictures »b\irned up* 
from the snow which had fallen siiB2e the accident. The records 

at ctxtgll s^©-a»Ilj;cf bei a dilvt aieiaAl ULtt^tmi « tinr hauol 9d 

•iflv o:t diidoal tl&d & btijs, owJ bbw qasi fl"rf;t lo artel ^tii ^sricT (*1 
;^o£fe asw aasi ori^ lo iioi;tli)jaoo s»xl;^ ;i^i ii»3eaLBlb at aerionl 

isfisiA £Lo lavaii ba& siaij ©xici' Jjs nsllel bjsff eE®£i:iI'ii3& d^BxiJ \ioa lo 

'lo i.jjjo^ j;ps|.l i£#v»s TCi£8^>*'^3&:«!t'Sfq^ a^sw cfBat/Jtao* oiij lo SCLtJ Oiii eta 

atiw bsdOj&oiqqB x/o , .'^t I3wa»v*i feic'rvvsiO 'lo ©af)9 niejes© arfd" 1© 

iJitiil xitu 10 'ioJ-5j43ll»i oil a«w 01 odd' iS^uoa cud laoil afosiJ 

olisauf) nx oilsJia adi oi loliq ti*r«jiiiiX «i^ Id i»lJlfoaoy ©rfcj- bsoi^ofl 

YOiviC ■ *®eii8fc TcXils'i 9T©w xedi^ Se-d^ ^*{d%td ieft^i 

:!:&di eiBia gd-a^Malsis "^jiKiiiXd-gsct- a'i|;©nao&' *io ^oslla ©vid-sdoaq »di 

dd^ii Ei&i 9f4d 096 \'XHi,aXq feX*foo 9x1 iaji;^ bQlliiaeS HoadiC nsmriDdiwfc; 

-jIw isdi i^zsBd&iQa jiOBC ©icaa 1© issl COS ©i»a Kifi-Eeo^o siW' no 

W^aab 10 -^diil) Jon Sisw eJseX sxl^ dciifd bed ad" e t^nlS bOB sLs^ & 98 eon 

^98l OOX duoaa a BAT sii xisiiw &ai*L sfiJ- wea »ii jsrid beifiSz XdiXX dfliW 

1b1i& 6>iivi' Js beoi/^oiq eow qousX add ©aosoecJ "eXtfaXXei -^XsiXd-ns" 

dcJ-Xw ansX doat-.. od" dfleraoiJjgiiSiB Xiiwdos x<^ nwoxia ssw i-X bns 

iOfiB ^j,fjH" j&c^iida i©i{dixrl Xaaxujo^ ".aaoiOiS A£— ^ biis ©ixfd-sviuo 

;s«aoS d-isrid XT.oi& saisaauj oria^ id£iXbhoo qvv' tmuw ^aisi;^ nsxl^ d'nus^J'ioqcax 

L^t 'leiiE •^.:.f-i d-:-?n r;i:; ^fcf ariqaiso^oriq ^ lo aal^Bi &di inibisaei fcXoJ- 

»XX ^diibe-10 3 al ed ifiid-silw dtfxioD \;bk ©vr ^d-nsfeXoos 

ir,£L ^ajsXX'i Bd& 'mt imtQoo& 10 BQUboiq od' l)©:i»« -««ir 9H 

• ; L; s'.'i:;t'T py.iiKtoXq ejrfd- d'Kild' liafl riaias cod' n&qo sieiaBO aXri fifirf «ri 


of the ^Accident Prevention Bureau of the City of Chicago were 
brought in by that department's official photographer and they 
established that Bonney did not turn in any films wiiich were 
•burnt up' and thit if he had done so they would be in the 
negative container » Finally, it was shown by the U, ii* weather 
report data tiiat no snow fell in Chicago all day January I5th, 
from 7 ^o'^« to 7 i^.^Jfi." The counsel further staite that Bonney 
is the only vdtness who testified that the crossing lamp was not 
plainly visible to all traffic approaching the crossing, and that 
"Bonney' ii testiraony is not credible evidence," 

It v/ould unduly lengthen this opinion to cite further 
excerpts from defendants' brief tliat show tlmt defendants are con- 
stantly forced to argue as to the weight of the evidence and the 
crediDij.ity of the witnessfs. Plaintiff's counsel is Justified in 
contending that defendants' entire discussion of the facts is 
ppacticaily an argument as to the credibility of the witnesses and 
the weight that should be attached to their testimony. 

In support of their contention that v/e have a right, in 
passing upon the action of the trial court in entering a judgment 
Bon obstante vereuictOfi to disregard, in to to . certain evidence 
introduced by plaintiff, defendants cite Hadley v. V»hitey 367 111. 
4Cb« That case, of com'se, does not sustain defendants' position, 
There the trial coui't iiad heard the testimony in a chancery pro- 
ceeding and the point was made upon appeal that the court's findings 
were palpably contrary to the weight of the testimony. The Supreme 
court called attention to the fact that the trial judge had seen 
the -.vitnesses and listened to their testimony and the.t the findings 
of the court v^rere well supported by competent evidence. The state- 
ment in the opinion to the effect that there might be so many 
omissions, discrepancies and improbabilities in the testimony of a 
witness as to justify a court or jury in disregarding it in its 

entirety has no bearing upon a motion for judgment non obstante 
veredicto i^ 

aU nl 9cf blEoz< -^eri:f oa »aob fcsri ©il li :t ^ric^ bns »qjj ^nixjcf» 

Tsd^Bsw » . viid- xd" fTffdffat airtr #1 ^X-f-f'^^ol^ ,iealfi;Jfioo »vi::tB3»n 

^orf^I x^fiWiisT, YS& lis ©SBoM© Jtl Jtlsl wona on issii B't&b :J'ioqd'i 

-aoo sii5 scJ-naba^^sfc j-xl^ woria J'^iiJ* Iftlno ♦ ed-nfifece'lsi: raoil 2;fqi9©3cfc 

srfcf fens smisIjxv o idgis^ir »rii^ oct as mtsijs oJ^ b«>5iol xiSiifii& 

at betll^uisl si le^swoo ^^YllintBl^ »a»aasfl»tlw ©£[;> "io x^ ■^-•■t'i Iharo 

t ^d"risli s evi I . At HoL^ns^fiGt) ilsMd to i"3oqqirti nl 

tttnmn^bssi B 3ij±«®^Hd fit f*iJfot) leiTd' arfd- lo hidI^oa 9di aoqa sclaasq 

♦III ^d£ f&j± 4M .V ■y^e^bBli ojjfco ad-fljsSae^'Sb ,1'lxdiiliils Tfcf bs-s^foondiil 
^ii:old-±2oq ' adiisMr'i^f; xilsdswe Son a®ofo ^&a*iifoo lo ^saso ia^n: .OU^ 

Silbail a*d'iuo;- jt'ii-'X? obsm srw dttloq ©lid' lbii£ jiBlI)»e'0 

ia&iqj/£ 9udT .Ynoarid-ar J od x'^s'si^oos XXfisqlst;- s^ew 

SCifcnl" ^^omtStzQ^- iA&d:i- od b^tmi^ll ban BBzaeairh: arid 

'Q&£:tR ■ , ... '•m,-fa'i- .-tf v'f ht-.j'^.n. r.if.^ fr*--- «•■».>. i-iJCIO© 9iij to 

c lo -^oEildesj .,.^ ^.^ ., -idlllcfseforcqiLi: fofiB a^isn/sqeiselft ^anoluziCEO 
ad-i ni -^ ^ „r.'-K..-r>.,^.ro ^^ ^ ;■ ^rr.,.-- .... ^.,.,^j, ^ icl^eiit od e.-5 aasndiw 

By anything that we have said we do not mean to imply 
that we have any opinion as to the credibility of witnesses or the 
weight, if any, that should be attached to their testimonj^ as the 
alternative motion of defendants for a new trial is not before us, 
and it is for the trial court to pass upon said motion, (See 
Goodrich v. Sprague^ 376 111* 8o,) 

Holding, as we do, that the trial court erred in entering 
judgment non obstante veredicto, the judgment of the Circuit court 
of Cook county is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions 
to the trial court to pass upon defendants' motion for a new trial, 
and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, 



Fri,®«4, p. J,, and Sullivan, J., concur ^j,, 


■^Xqcil: ■ od" fl&sm .tojK ob svr hi- 5 ?T.?:f o'-v i^-;^,rtt Anijii\tis xS 

■^irfcf TO !2©5 8 0fdJ: 

edZ) .noli^om bin 

■%ntl3in& lit. b^-'i;"^ i-yi;o- 

,'JLWOnOO ^,1, ^IleSVjLCIliS Ma ^«I, ,*? ^tMMtilst? 




MOS^ I. BAYLSS et-aT*, 

/ Def^^danJ^s, ^^ 

"tma^LE COR^XtiON.. a cotpof atioilf I/' ) 
a^^^'altls^n^'or rigbts of Joseph, '^ f ) 
§6lomon|/!^|ntiffj, 3i;^e d"io«msed, *" 

/ /Wvi^.4?a4ty)/ Appellant, 

) ^' 


y i 

a corporation, 

(Respondents) Appellees, 




This is an appeal by Mngyle Corporation, a corporatioa, 
as assignee of rights of Joseph Solomon, plaintiff, from an order 
entered May 29, 1939, denying its motion in writing to vacate and 
set aside an order theretofore entered on May 25, 1933# dismissing 
the cause for v;rant of prosecution. 

The instant cause, a bill in chancery to foreclose a 
mechanic's lien, ras commenced by Joseph SolOBion, The cause was 
referred to Master Behan on June 17, 1924, and on October 24, 1930, 
defendants closed their proofs. On the same date tae master 
ordered plaintiff to close the rebuttal evidence by Movember 6, 
1930, Ilarjy continuances followed because the parties failed to 
appear, and on June 8, 1931* "the master entered an order declaring 
proofs closed and requested the lawyers to submit the testimony 
and exhibits so that he might prepare his report, IVhile the hearing 
was in progress before the master Moses I, Bayles and Nettie Bayles, 
his wife, defendants, conveyed the premises in question to defendant 
Samuel J, Richman, an attorney, who had been active in the hearing 
before the master. On June 6, I93I, Joseph Solomon, complainant, 
died testate and his will was probated in the Probate court of Cook 


» 5.;;'ii::ui'<;t 'i- 

Tira MOM JM^^A ^ 

An:. "0 THOOO 

Cj ftii* a ,1 1. C.*Y 

'.roo jS 



P^-'V^K ,T c^:; Qti 

.^.iJiuv./v' iViij. ■i'.^ »ivJ4.(tjj, uv 

_,_^^^,^-:vr.-'tnM«*)^»— »«»»■. f 

RRs ©J-aOBV o^ gftjtix'nv at noiiom sii sfll^sb ^^£^1 ^^S x^^' tsioias 

.xioi;ti;oeaoiq lo &naw 'lol sai/ao erW 
a aeolDC'iol oj yisofisiio ni Hid b ,®sjjsj> Ijrtijd-anJt atlT 

^■Jf^l ^■^^■ iecfo;JoO no 5n« i^^^'^I ^^X exitilt no nBfI®a T©;t8jSK o* bsiielsn 

^sJ-tiBni 9/'^ QiLib ©iDLaa sriJ . tooiq lisrfd- &saoXo cdrteJbnslsI) 

^d tiacfinsvofl ^cf soflsfelv© X/s;t-;i-;i:d:.'i ©ilct ©eoXo oi lltiatslq, bBisbio 

a0li£5Xooi) lefcio ns bsi&iae i©d-aB« erii »X£<?X ,8 sruiZ no baa ^issqqa 

TCacasflJ^as^ ed;t d-iascfxfc '::wbX srict bo;j8 9i:;p©i ba& £>©goXo slooiq 

|xU:i.o9fi sdd' olhJSI .cfioqsi ajui ©laq&iq ctrigiKf od imiS o2 e^UXxIxs I)nj5 

.asXY^fi 9id'C}'®15 fenfi aeX^BS .1 eaaoM i9;J-2S£i srf;J eiolscf ggsigoiq al esar 

^njeJbua©T:s£i o;:! fiold-aewp at acW" bs^svaoo ^sitnafenslob tSllw alil 

^X'laad ©fij nl svtiOB a&&<i b&d oriw <x'5nio^:?6 an ^tx&mdotE ,1 Isfm&S, 

^SU£JS.lBlqmos ^noxrtoXoe xlq^eol ,I£?X »d Mtat nO .iL^J&Bm Bdi oaolscf 

■rfonij T'Q "rtCriM ft-indnffti i»rf+ n f- h^ft' i^tinn-rr a, 

r r K» n >-#>/ (... 

county, and on August 6, 1931, letters testamentary were issued 
to his widow, Bessie Goloaon, Ihe claim involved in the instant 
cause was inventoried and by an order entered in the Probate 
court it was sold by the executrix to Pearl 3, OleniO:, who after- 
ward sold and assigned it to appellant, uingyle Corporation, On 
May 25, 1933, as heretofore statea, the cause was dismissed for 
want of prosecution, while it still pending before the master. 
On May 17, 1938, the motion of appellant to set aside the order of 
dismissal was filed, and on May 23 an amendment to the motion was 
filed. The motion states that it is based upon Section 72 of the 
Civil Practice ACt; that Joseph Solomon, complainant, ?/as deceased 
at the time of the entry of the order dismissing the cause; that 
such fact did not appear of record, and that it constituted such 
error of fact as might be corrected by motion in the nature of a 
writ of error coram nobis . Defendants filed motions to dismiss 
or deny the motion, as amended, filed by appellant, and afterward 
defendants Bayles and Richman filed their amended motion. Upon 
this appeal it is only necessary to state that the motion of Bayles 
and Richman, defendants, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to 
entertain in a chancery proceeding a motion under Section 72, Defend- 
sjits' motions were overruled by the trial court and thereupon they 
filed their several answers and amendments thereto to the motion of 
appellant as amended. There was a hearing before the trial court 
and at the conclusion of the same the trial court entered the order 
of May 29, 1939, from v/hich appellant appeals. 

Appellant contends, inter alia, that Section 72 applies 
to a chancery case. Defendants contend, inter alia, that it does 
Bot« The Supreme court, on April 10, 1941, filed an opinion in 
Frank v. Salomon, 376 111, 4-39, holding that Section 7^ of the 
Civil Practice Act is not applicable to cliancery proceedings. The 
court quotes with approval (p» 443) the following from y^astt^,.. 
Brewing Co. v. Koehler. 200 111. 3^9: "'In an action at law the 

statute abolishing the writ of error coram nobis and substituting 


i>6ifj:;ei '^-13^1 x-ii;ja3fa«ji.-.yj &ie:ftel ,X£x?X ^0 JajJa^^A no bna ,'^*nxroo 

•^iiaJenJt silo ill &9vXovxix jcialo Qd'i »noitioIoc; aieqgrS ^wobiw aid od- 

sd-flcfoi^T 9iio ni ijeiodns 19610 as i(o' Ms bBlioin&vaX s&w ©bubo 

flO .nolJ-sioq-soO slYSnJ:*'.' ^uajil-sqqx:, " ' .! r:--^ivx. g;;; bnB Jbloa bnsw 

8SW noi::to£< eri^f ©jjf iae^aemB a& i^ '^aUI flas ba.& ^J&slll saw iBeaiJoalft 
adc^ lo SX aolioec xioqjj i>»CBcf ax ;M Isiicr «^^js^8 aol^^cun srf?^ .fcslil 

fiojL'a i>9dx;ji:3-anoD Jl cTsrf^t bna ,bioooi lo i^egqa t©c Lib iOBt r£o»8 
B 7o siBd-ea ©lit nl nol^fistt 's?^ i>«J"coTioo ad iriala Bjs #oel lo iom» 

aaliaslii o^ 3CoUoi». b&itl ad-jECsfc/tsloC; .gjcfo g gjaio? loiis lo ^iivr 

aoqIJ •floJEd'o* k®b£i&usi -xl&d^ b^^ll eUBssAotKhaB zelx&E &:ia3baetsb 
z»l%&Q to £ioi:^ioe.< affiJ j«i«;t B^aiz oa^'.Stia&aSiooa xXfic sX ^I IsoqqjEi 8±rf:f 
)J iro/oo 9xij 1© imliotbalisjl 91W b^sfloIXafJo jScfiSBbn&'lsf) ,xiBifi£loJtH bus 
aisloG ♦S^ ii0MD&S nsiaaif fiojt^tojta i3 jjfllbasoortq x*16*mx-^^ ^^ ^-t nisitiecfa© 
X^/cU iiosjiiaiexiil' fa^ d"i«f©0 Isii^ ad;;^ ^cf bsJtinnsv© 9i^ anoiJ-oci ♦acfius 
'to aoi.iOE'- siiJ- ot oJ9i©i:[;l' 3^fl$atbtt9««5 firts aisarfind I/sisvaa nlsxlcf bsXll 
tivoo Xsi^^ ©dir siolod 3fllx3©xl s ^m o^arR. .bsbnaBU as ^HBXXsqqa 
isbiQ ©ri^ ttsio^JH© t«B5B»© Xelid- ^il# smse »di to notduloaoo 9d:i c^s bos 

♦ eXaeq-qs jtnfiXXaqqa ^oixivf moil t^t^-l^ t?S XJ^ ^o 

e^lXqta St not-t^S^a ^flit* .jsiXja -isj-fil ^abno^Jnoo ^nsXX»qqA 

asob .tl *sff? jugiL(k2-J^^ ^iaxia;:fxioo 3:J-£is£mi919(I .ssso x'-iQaasdo s o:t 

jzl riolfiiqo n& bfttit iX-f^^i ^OX Xl'iqA no ,;tij;r©o sesiqua sxlT •:^on 

^A lo 1^ Koi;?o->« ^tfifW uRtblod e^c* .XXI d^£ aiffiW^ffirfif- ,y Hfj-fl 

edt ♦e^fliJlJ'^'Sooiq t's^onAda o^ eldBOllqai^ icn at iok &otiOBi^ Xjt?Jt3 

■ Hi-tti^ 'E jEoil siS^^'oXiol 9il^ (£■►* ,q) Xsvoiqqs xiJXw ee;toifp ^tix/oo 

9ife»- »bX i* iiolioa ixa hI»" i^dt •Xil COS ,riaXri902^ .v «oO SfliwOTg 

therefor a motion, authorizes the court to set aside a Judgment 
at any time within five years, for an error of fact ths-t came 
within the scope of the writ as it existed at coiamon law, **♦ 
The statutory motion does not apply to cases in chancery, *** 
Th« proper method of impeaching and setting aside a decree after 
the term is to file an original bill in the nature of a bill of 
review, when such decree may be set aside, reversed or modified, 
according to the equities of the parties, »" On June 4, 1941, 
a rehearing was denied in the Frank case. 

The judgment order of the Superior court of Cook county 
of May 29, 1939# is affirmed. 


Friend, P. J,, and Sullivan, J,, concur. 


«BffO ^iSiCfa' :tf»f5l 'io i«ni* n.e tol ^ais©^ uvlt rtJtfl\-tJtw «»5l^ Y«fi ^* 

**«* ,-^<i9©m5rfo lit. af^" OK s#ofc noWoK xiocfj^sd-a e^T 

lerf'ijG ©sToefe 3 ©Was ajii:.1jua ibxiB ^nxiioBeqicl 'to feoriJ^aia isqoiq ©iIT 

to ILld G 1o eird-srs erii &1 11 Id liaalsl-ro fla sill ocT al Kia<? sd^ 



lS>«KHrER, WII313R)E, POST and ^.. 


be;i&efit /pro of otacAGa alid 

,^'^ Defendants, 

"^C ) 



(Defendant) Appellant, 


An appeal "by Catherine McDonnell Braun, defeaiant, from 
an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction against 
defendants, and also from a further order denying motion of said 
Braun to dissolve the injunctional order. 

The verified complaint alleges, in substance, that 
Michael A« McDonnell, an employee of the City of Chicago, died 
January 21, 1941; that he had been a member of and a regular 
contributor to the Municipal Inplpyees* Annuity and Benefit Fund 
(Ch, 24, Sec, 1044-1107,111, Rev, Stat, 1939)» thiit from January 
11, 1941, until his death McDonnell had been hospitalized at the 
feshington Boulevard Hospital aM plaintiffs either expended or 
contracted to pay for doctors' services and other expenses; that 
upon McDonnell's death Deir, plaintiff, expended certain sums 
for the funeral and burial of McDonnell; that deceased left no 
property except the asaet represented by his contributions to said 
benefit fund; that no letters had been issued or applied for in the 
Probate court; that McDonnell had been divorced from his wife and 
left no widow; that he left one child, Catherine McDonnell Braun, 
defendant, a married woman, who was not dependent upon deceased. 
The complaint further alleges that on February 21, 1941, The 





.YiMiJooMooo to mrooS 

^ -1 G( 

... 1 


■OGoh KH£.^I1TA0 

.isb^o ianoWaai/tJEtl: Bdi &vlosBlb oJ iswaia 
&s£ti ^9©fiEt3cfi;8 fii ^2935X1.6 ^jaijslqmoo bsiliisv eiiT 

•iBXiyasi s b£L£i lo i9cf«iG>iE s as«</ fasfl 9x1 J^*ri;t jI^^^X ^XS -^TCSiaiBL 

bmfi cj^ilsixaa tea -ij^JiiJfsflA *8esiYQl(p(i XBqlDlOi^'I ati^ oi io;t«dlii-aoo 

YiiJittiijT, CIO!!! i:Mii li^i^l ,;tad-8 ,voH .XXI ^^GXX-^^'OX ,»98 ,-^2 .iiO) 

9«0- iij ^eslXfid-iqaorl xx©©<J fcad XXfiflnoQoK xi;ts59b airi XXcfm? tXA^X ^XX 

10 Le^ijneqx© i&£itl9 sTlUalMlq, htm la^iqioH firtijveljjojf jsaJjiilrie^ 

cfsrfJ {z<^za9qxB i@dio has aaoXviea 'e^odoo* lol "^sq oi^ !)9;to£*i;?noo 

aiaua nli^iiso bsbneqxs ^llx^aisXq tiXoC xiiasfi a'XXsxsnoCoM flKKjJJ 

oa ;>'li?X b&a39os£» tjndt jIXanaoGoM lo Xal-Hicf Ijob L&itmssi sd:i ie1 

bta& oi Qnol^uUlt^mjo ejtri X"^ boc^neesiqsi J-scsg arfS ^q9ox» t^tasqciq 

9il;t cX lol belXqqs lo bsjyaaX jcxsatf bad ziBii^sI on ^iadi {btwt illQacxi 

baa ©llv^ alii cicil Lsoiovlft xiaacf bsri XXamioGoM ^J-JSdJ" |^ij;joo o;Jiatfoi^ 

^xiL-fiia XXtimoQoM aaXi9ii;t.aJ.) ^bXixIo 9jso ^S^lel ©d ;^isii;t l»oi)J:w cjn dleX 

»fi©a«»oei) floqiJ ianbaBqeb Son 8sw odv/ ^afiJBow bQli'isa b ^J^xiGfcnelsi) 

edT tX-t^^-'X ,XS x'^^vtdB''^ no ;^«f{;r eegoXXfi isil^-url dnXsXqajoo sdT 


Retirement Board of the Municipal Employees* Annuity and Benefit 
Fund of Chicago, defendant, after a hearing on the application of 
said defendant Braun for a refund of the contributions made by the 
deceased to the fund, ordered said refund paid to said Braun as the 
daughter of the deceased; that she openly denied any obligation to 
pay plaintiffs, and has stated that she would not pay them out of 
said refund, although requested to do soj that plaintiffs relied 
on this fund for payment and that said defendant. If permitted to 
receive the fund, would place it beyond their reach; that said funds 
were not exenqpt from attachment, garnisliment, or other legal or 
equitable process. The complaint alleges that the statutes should 
be construed "so that persons who render emergency aid end medical 
service and burial to an employee contributor to the said Municipal 
Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago may look to any 
refunds due from said fund for the payment of their reasonable 
charges made on behalf of said contributor employee during his last 
hours of last illness and for the expenses of decent burial, in the 
absence of the rights of minors under said section; * * -^ that in 
equity and good conscieace the said Catherine McDonnell Braun should 
not be permitted to receive anrl dispose of said funds nov/ held by 
the said Municipal Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago 
to the prejudice of the lawful claims of these pilain tiffs; that in 
equity and good conscience the People's IVrit of Injunction should 
issue forthwith * * * to restrain the Retirement Board * * * from 
paying over to the defendant, Catherine McDonnell Braun, any re- 
funds or moneys representing the contributions made by the de- 
ceased * * * to said fund during his lifetime until the claims, of 
these plaintiffs have been considered and adjudicated by this court; 
that unless said injunction issue the rights of these plaintiffs 
will be irreparably dame,ged and irreparable injury will be 
occasioned to said plaintiffs thereby; that unless said injunction 
Is issued without notice to, the defendants that there may be 
occasioned an advancement of the date of payment upon the afore- 


d-ltaaefi bUH >cd-JU;£tnA 'Gseijolqi^ XsqiolauM arfcT lo biBoa itnm9ilt9B 

lo floJt:^^olIqqfi ftrij xi© ^l1k^9l{ c lectlB ^ctflxibnsleb ^osBolxiO lo bmi^ 

9ri;f Tid sr>j8ffi sMoljtsdi^iaoo Bd^ lo bfmlsT a tol mtHiQ ^Jriacnalsf; JbJ^^B 

dd ad mjsna bjujs o^ ^iisq baulBi bl&s, beiBino ^kassl ^dS ei b&e&Qoeb 

a? flolitesJtIJo vitj : oinsft T^Jtoaqo acifi c»/5Jli jf>*aB6t>oI) aurlo lo ihisi:^fjQb 

lo ^uo ffl-3- . , dlwovf arls cJMcl b9^fi^e. n&ti bos ,2ll±;Jni.Blq -^aq 

beiJEs'i alli^flielq d-^irf^ ^03 ofc oi b^^'d&tfff^n d'^etlfla ^fcoclei J&iag 

oS b&mmr»q_ If ^iitsfefielsfc fel«;a dr./.; Tn '. .jn«diaxcq 1©1 tol/l gJnU no 

iml bJtiia ct-£iJJ jiiofisrt tXe«i>^ faaoxycf j_ _ .-_jjow ^jbnufl sxtJ svxoosi 

biiSosiE BeiUoz::ia Bd:f isri^ 8!S8»XId cJ-ixlsIqaos acS: .assijo-iq 9ltfsd"Jttfp9 

iBOlijsffi bxiu blB ■^ao9«''-''-^ •; .'rr ■' onw aflosisq $&di o«" bsund^anoo ecf 

.sqioJiaj:'" ^^'- -^ "•-■' -•'- \.^. .u-,^ .^^.^^o ..^;xoIqei9 ££«, a? I^lxwcf 5nB aolvioa 

^Hii wo ^i^«^;. x.->'"' aseoMO lo i>tWH ^JtlenaS Jbxua x^JUiimA *a««YoXqpa 

©icfsflossei ixacfd^ lo ^^asaixfiq srW 10I l>aiJl feisa UJO'il eub zbiw'iBi 

o -^ djtif 3Xix"ii.'x) -exolcimQ noJs<iXi:iaoo i)Xi;« lo llisriscf no aJbsia asgifiiio 

dd" ill ^laliud 4:iXfea9l) lo E«9sn&qx© s/^r —' ftjHis scsitXIJ: ^asl lo sivoti 

" ■ "" - : "' '' ^ laotiose .cl;ie TaLni; irauriii:: lo ed-iiai'i sxi^ lo i^JonsedB 

.i.oi,<.: m;:r-..- ;i.oxinoGok yiil-xoiWaC' bik^a ead •s«oio££too f>oc3 bitfi x^-twpe 

YC? ^lorl ?ifon ebflifl Llfya lo aeoqaxl) fcae ©visosn od" feeJiimieq etf cfon 

o^ iOiriL' lo bij-' " i3«j,S fcxiis xJXxrnnA 'ase^oIqiHS XsqiolxmM bisa 9d;f 

aX is^i ;£lliJiU6ig aeaild lo gciJLeXo IitIwbI ari^t 1© soXJExu^eiq QAi oi 

bJLiods xtoii^tiaLGn " " ' 'c/os*! od^ ooaeloaxioo boog baa x^-^^P® 

IB911 •"■ ' t5©a j-a^iiio'ixjo-i Qiij iiiBi^ssi aJ * * * ddlwild-iol ©xrcal 

-.1 '^gtui ^iiti/iiS IlstiaoCl:^ Oiti'isrttaO ^d-ftofefislsl) oriJ- od' isvo afll^sq 

—si) gjpCct x«J 9fc*«E snoiuucfli^fioo eild" snictnaasiqei ax©Go« 10 eMcl 

lo aiEjjiXa 9ilcl XxJ-Jur aiSEidslil ai«l Sfiittfirb Jbiutrl fcjt,.a o;t * * * L98jseo 

'XAJoo aisW -^fd fcod-jsolinrtfefi hu& Ij©ief)X2noo n5)scf svBri allidnicXq aaorW 

ellX:Ja.tBXq ©esrii' lo sd'iisXi acfit ©XfaeX noi:trjm;f{;ni: bXsa easXim d^sdd' 

etf XiJiW A{rr«tiii: sXcfanBqstial ba& f)©3Bffl(6fc TjXcfBisqeT;^! stf XXXw 

noli ^Biiltil bi^a aesXay ctiSii;f ;^cf9i&rf.t gllX;tn±ijXq 51iBa oi bsnoiasooo 

£Kf \isiii Qi&di i&Ai ^itl£>bfl&1^b oAi oi ©oxd^oa iuodittt bairsal al 

mentioned application of Catherine McDonnell Braun by said 
Retirement Board «• ^ * which ftould render any injunction issued 
* •» * of no force and effect| thst until a hearing and adjudication 
of the rights of these plaintiffs before this court no injury vdlll 
be occasioned to the defendants herein * * *»" The coroplaint 
prayed that an injunction issue against both defendants; "that 
the refund held by The Retirement Board * * * be declared cliargeable 
with the payment of plaintiffs* claims as proven by plaintiffs, and 
that defendants herein may be ordered and directed to pay to plain- 
tiffs from said moneys so held by said Retirement Board * * * the 
amounts found to be due to each of the plaintiffs herein, and upon 
failure or refusal of the defendant, Catherine McDonnell Braun, to 
comply with any of the terms of any decree hereinafter to be entered 
herein that a Special GonEiissioner be appointed by this Court to 
carry out the directions and orders of this court in the premisesj 
and that these plaintiffs may have s'lch other and further relief 
in the premises as equity may require and to the court shall seem 
meet," Attached to the complaint and made a part thereof is a 
statement of the items that v>fent to make up the claims. Plaintiffs 
later filed a verified supplemental complaint that alleges; "That 
although more than sixty days have elapsed since the death of 
Michael A. McDonnell, the defendant, Catherine McDonnell Braun 
has omitted and neglected to open an estate for the said Michael 
A. McDonnell in the Probate Court of Cook County; that in the 
absence of said estate being opened by the said Catherine McDonnell 
Braun it was necessary for Annie McDonnell, mother of the deceased, 
to execute and file her petition for Letters in the said Probate 
Court of Cook County on March 28, 1941, which was, in fact, done 
and heirship proved on that day; that the court set April 28, 1941, 
as the date for the hearing upon the petition of the said .ainie 
McDonnell for Letters of Administration; that it is impossible for 
the plaintiffs herein to have their claims adjudicated against 
the Estate of Michael A. McDonnell until after the appointment of 

iji;;/BaJtl>J5t^« fans aaiise^ s ii;;JfliJ cTaiS^ l^^ooll© bm »fno1 cm lo « » * 

Btiiislq oj ^sq oi bsi^exfiS lea Jbaiefcio scf ^jaei tslfeiaii a;JjiiiJaa©'i9i) ;tari^ 

Qrit * * * biBoE. d-fxsEsiid-aiS felfsa X<^ .^Jiaf^ 0*3 spiaaom ijJUe fisoTTi elXU 

Ejoqj; Ma ^isiad aViUal:&l'i Qdi to done oi 9Sib cjcT oi cdwo't ni^au&iiA 

o5 ^£as&iQ. IIsfHtousM Ba.li9il'J&Q ^-itiHimQl^'^b hU: 'io ifiawlBi 10 siuIJUl 

jaeejaasiq ©tW n* Jitroo alrlj^ lo siebio fens aHOl;fo©ii6 «ri;^ ;;^x;o y^iia^ 
lotl&vL tmiii'ZL . ..... •iBdio jloj'a ^Vaii Xf^ ztliJal&lq essii^t JarU iaia 

^•T =*3 IL^de v^iiio© ftEt}- od- fens ®%lup&% xem x^^'P* «« a»aJ»e^q[ ecU aX 

i&dt^ tas^®Xlte t&tii c^iti/sXqiao© Xis^asffidXqqwa |j&lli'i-»v & £>»Xil ■ie;f*i, 

g^,^ „u -. -L i[Q4sO "io ;J"i«oO »iA«j«n<i «i»^ iXJt IlaanoCoM *A 

X&iino'Uoiv- SJ.4.;. ;:';::, J s '■" -"' "iott^qo aalsd e;}-jsd'2» feise lo soaeacti 

bBUBB^eb add lo ^siijot: j.(.j-Bj-fio,<5l ©ixuiA lat TCiise«s>osa ajtw ^Jt aju&%9, 

Wfi^OTl Mjb8 sjcicf ' I 10I aolilioq i9ti 9IXI baa s^ffloax© oi 

mob ^io." ■ , '^,'' .^'i dsiiiM jao Vii-'oO aiooO lo ;tawoO 

I4^^X ^8S Xxic^.> JOc. .-.iOL ,,■■ i\ab i&iU flo ijsvoiq qXriaiXsrf baz 

BismL blK-t sijdJJ lo xxoiJlwS'y, saiJ fioqir asiaijsil afi^ iq% aiab &(ii 8« 

101 dXtfXaaoqffii ' J i 7 ;froivfe's;j8ixxJ:fii£>-. lo ei&id^sj i&^ XIonfloQoM 

d'BfliesB Z>8Ju»iri/&B;3 eailfiXi) ii:«ri:J svati oj nldiaii alllcfnlsXq 9di 


a legal representative by the Probate Court j that therefore your 
petitioners pray that this court take jurisdiction of the subject 
matter of plaintiffs' claims to the end that there will be avoided 
a multiplicity of suits, and that after an adjudication of the 
reasonableness of the claims of the plaintiffs herein that the 
refund heretofore restrained from being paid to the defendant, 
Catheriae McDonnell Brsun, may be held to be chargeable with the 
payment of plaintiffs' claims as in the prayer of the complaint 
more specifically set forth," 

The Retirement Board filed an answer that avers, in sub- 
stance, that it has no interest in the litigation other than as 
trustee of the moneys in question, and denies that the Act la 
question is unconstitutional in any respect or in any of its 

The Retirement Board has not appealed from the interlocutory 

The defendant Braun's motion to dissolve the temporary 
injunction alleges that the complaint is without equity on its face; 
that Section 1082(e) is not subject to the interpretation sought 
by plaintiffs! that plaintiffs are not proper parties to the 
complaint for the reason that the cause of action, if any, belongs 
to the administratrix of the estate of McDonnell, deceased; that 
If plaintiffs' allegation that the refund is not exempt from 
attaclaaent, garnishment, or other legal process, is sound, then 
plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law. 

Defendant Braun contends that "the court was without 
jurisdiction to enter the injunction herein because the action of 
the Board in awarding defendant the r f und is subject to review 
by certiorari only," This point was not raised in defendant 
Braun* s motion to dissolve the injunction, However, there is no 
merit in it* The instant suit does not challenge the legality or 
propriety of the Retirement Board's order. Plaintiffs seek to 
reach the amount of the refund allocated to the daughter of the 

d-ostcfj-i i^oJtbaiiwt ©alsi J-iwoo 3.W;t tsriit x«^<I aienold-l^sq 

39i)IovB £'0 iliw 0'3[9fi;t *B£W Jbtt9 »ii^ o;^ bibIbXo ♦ellliiilBlq lo i9;t;tfl« 

ari^ lo nolcfsoibirt ?ifls ;fail;t kas ^bSIvz lo x^Jt3J:Iql;tIiJffl a 

itlslqaoo sriJ- lo 'is^i'^-: . s&iiAly ' ellicfnialg lo ;tneincaq 

".jdctiol C^OK xXIfiOillosqs 9no« 
-OL'^ ftx ^3l^Yi3 SsJii Tsweos fls i}®!!! £^soS ia^msmlieB. ^riT 

jhx i^f'. afi. ■ ne ^nolcJ-aswp al BX®a<m siii lo esj-aai^ 

iSiijQlisttit 9xii fitoil Jbslsoqqa c^on asrl MsoS in0Meii.t9H aril 

-^■Xiiioqa-:: vloeeift od aolj^om a^mraiQ Sa&baBlBb ssetT 

'•iXfos IIoi^fid^e^f1®i^ oi ;3^o;5tcfi:ja ioa si (9)S80I uoWoaS iadi 

9£iS oi Kstl'imi loqoiq j-ofs 9is elllcffllijiq .taxW ielli;JnlaIq x<f 

^■^ol^d ^S/.:. , ' MiiO &£it f&ti;^ xsoaasn ^di lol IfijfcBXqffioo 

;beBeQOQb ,XI©iino<I«M lo scfs^as sri;t lo xt'iii&iizhilBil>& scii oS 

ffloil ;tq»9X9 J-Ofi sJ: feniJl -t oricf .lKri;t xioiissaXIi' 'elliinifiXq 11 

aarict ^i)jDiJOc , .ooiq Xfis»X isiii'o •lo ^JnandeXaifiS ^cJnsitiriosiiB 

,wsX :^ 5 X-fc®«®'J sifii^paJoB ixb ovad elllctnlBXq 

lo ciotioji 9£li sawBOsrf al9i9x{ aeliomilni &£it ib^^bs oi jaoWoUbaloift 

wejt-v osj^rfift itl fcax/l 1 »j[li i'nflbn©!®!) snXMsws nt biBoS Bdi 

iaskitislBb ai fceaJtci ion esw JaXoq sMI *\xIao li&iotitBo -^cf 

oa 81 oierfi ^isvswo' .noictonxftal sdi svXosaif) oJ noXion e'o&anS 

10 X'JXi^sseX &di ©afisXXwfo J-on asob J-loe ;txixiianX wlT ♦il ill j-lisic 

ot jlsea 2lli:tnJtBX^ .nsbio a'biaoB :J'a9BT»7Xi9H ©di lo ^Jeiiqoiq 


deceased^ defendant Braun, 

Defendant Braun contends that "this action is not brought 
by the proper party, the administrator of the estate of deceased, 
nor have the persons here, plaintiffs, established their claims 
against the estate of Michael A, McDonnell;" that "the fact that 
letters of administration were not applied for is immaterial as 
plaintiffs could have applied," There is no merit in this conten- 
tion. Neither plaintiffs nor defendant Braun contend that the 
estate of the deceased was entitled to the refund as an asset of the 
estate. The motion to dismiss the injunction Is based upon the 
theory, to use the words of her attorney In her brief, that "this 
money belongs to defendant, Catherine McDonnell Braun," and defend- 
ant argues that "the defendant Catherine McDonnell Braun is entitled 
to a trial by jury before her property can be touched,* 

Defendant Braun contends that "the law Is well settled 
that a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction on the ground that 
there is no equity on the face of the complaint operates as a 
demurrer to (or motion to strike) the complaint," and &rgues that 
it appears from plaintiffs* complaint that they csimot have the 
relief prayed for and therefore they were not entitled to a 
temporary injunction. Plaintiffs argue that "equity will raise 
a trust by construction where the conduct of a refund applicant 
Is attended with moral fraud, is repugnant to equity and good con- 
science, and is contrary to public policy," It is conceded that 
this is a case of first impression. In Lee v. HansberrYp 291 Ill» 
App, |?17, the First Division of tiais court, speaking through 
Mr, Presiding Justice 0»Connor, said (pp. 521, 522)» 

"Defendants contei^ that the complaint fails to state a 
cause of action because it falls to allege the restrictive agree- 
ment was signed by the owners of 95> per cent of the frontage of the 
property in the restricted area and that by the terms of the 
restrictive agreement It was not to become effective unless signed 
by the persons owning 95 per cent of the frontage. The agreement 

d-^xW" ^ojsI atij" i£idi "jllenaoC^r .' isisjcfsiiH lo 9;i&iB^ srfcf JsiiJtBSB 

W lo io -z :. n.j ao fenwlsi Qiii oi h^li i.ia9 saw &«aii«3s)fc acW lo ©d^ad"ae 

irlj^ £Loq.o ho^z&ii si aQi:;^^S£r^l Q^ic^ ealiEsiJb oi jciolioffi «iiT .8;ta^e9 

cixiut" J-^ilJ" ^lolid '19x1 Hi: -ijeniojjE imi lo abiow Qd:J- saw o^ ^xio^di 

-bixelsJb l)fifl "jijuijij'ia IlaflftoCoM Siitiexi^fiO ,d-iiAibKSJl9Jb o;t aaJOOled' x^soff 

sX;JlJngi Ri lu/iiiti XXsnnoOoli ^ELi'iSiE^jsO J'mjiijas>l©.& «dd" cfaiiJ- esjjsiij itm 

^ ^h^Aovo^ 9cf HBO x^i9(jo*iq tul siolscf X'SEWt X<^ Xj»X^i » oi 

beliiiss. Il9\v al wjsX ^d-J" i&ri;!' aJ&nsd'flQO auaiK dus^aleG 

l-iiTlj briwota 9fi:t no Roi.3 omslsxl ^jiaioqiaai s evXceelib o;t nolJ"Ofif s ctadcf 

s SB a9(^ai9qo iaL&lqmiO wi^ lo soijl Qdi no x^lBp* oa ax Q^Qdi 

^(yij aoijg'ic ijus " ^.tfiiaXqcroo &Ai {ejLlii& oi boHosr to) oj I3iiim9b 

adJ svaci slomiao x®^^ ^^sfliJ ^fnxfiXqaoo 'allictaljsXq rao-xl an^eqqs il 

>«r ^©fi;t si©l9i®£li^ i&£i6 lol i>®-^iq t&tlQi 

98xs'i iaj;« v.-i*»A fc llxJ^fiLteX'i ,rtol:f ofu, tiU X'^»'JO<l»©^ 

;JatvOXXqqB bmn j si^iiw jaoiiox/ijaiioo xc? i&si4 -* 

-noo Ikjos &xi« x^-^e^ ^^' jfidii^qej. «>! ,i>«a*3:l Xjsaoffl rtiiw b©f3flec^;tB si 

i^arict bofceofir , lojjq oJ^ ^lyid^aoo aX tos ^^aasioa 

•XXI I<?S ^Y-iiQociiten «v ot>a tii ♦fioXaas'iqaiX ^etXl lo «8bo j» ei aXriJ 

si^vo'iii^ sniJissqB ,;Jijl(oo airid- lo aolaJtifXia Saii"? anIJ^ ^''JX'^ «qqA 

s^fij-a Ovi aXifi'i JnxBXqao; .d,^ aeeonoo a^JifiijnelsCi" 

-oeis-ti 0v±d-3xid-^ ©aoXXfi 0.J aXiijl JX ®£/jj30otf aoX^Jojs lo ©ai/so 

B£ii lo ssiijxio'il oxi^ lo jrtyo isq ^^^ lo aioxusro &£ii xd jbaagis ajsw in©© 

bsjEQjXG 2&9lmi aviios'n© ®«to©s<J oi ton 3.iw ji ^jsjga»«^« »vid^aXids©i 

provides that it shall not be effective unless 'signed by tbe 
owners * * * of ninety-five per centiim of the frontage above 
described.* The allegation of the complaint is that 'ninety-five 
per centum of the owners of the frontage above described* have 
signed the agreement. We think the objection is tyrpercritical, 
but in any event, even if the complaint were subject to the 
special demurrer or motion to strike on this ground, that would 
Bot warrant us in disturbing the order appealed from. McDouEalj. 
Co, V. y/oodSf 247 111. App, I7O5 Friedman v. Peckley , l^'^ 111. 
App. 1995 Levy v, RogeR, 2^8 111. App, 262; Lincoln Trust ^ Savings 
Bank v. Nelson, 26I 111, App. 37O; Mayer v. Collins , 263 111, app, 
2191 DeKal b Trust & Savings Bank v. DePaul Ed. Aid Society, 278 
111. App, 102 ♦ 

''In the McDougall case, which was an appeal from an inter- 
locutory order appointing a receiver and granting a temporary 
injunction, we said (p. 172): »In appeals from interlocutory orders 
it Is not our province to determine the rights of the parties in the 
subject matter of the litigation, but simply to determine from the 
averments of the bill whether the party probably is entitled to the 
relief sought*; that where such order was improperly granted without 
notice where notice was risquircd, or where the statute required a 
bond as a condition precedent and none had been given, the order 
will be reversed without reference to the merits of the cause. And 
continuing we said (p. 174): *We do not feel called upon to pass 
upon the demurrability of the bill or the merits of the cause. It 
is enough to say at present that the bill presents circumstances 
which lead to a belief that probably plaintiff will be entitled 
to relief,* This holding was followed in each of the cases above 
cited." In Friedma n v. Peckler. supra , the Third Division of this 
court, speaking through Mr, Presiding Justice Wilson, quotes with 
approval the ruling in McDougall Go, v. Woods, supra, and states 
(pp« 204, 205): 

"The trial court is not required to examine minutely the 

Biii '^rf i;ansx,' ' ' vl^oslls so cfoii iissiz Jl ;t6ri:^ asfcjtvoiq 

svsii '^scfiioaf^i) svods ejiBixioil ©fl^t to aianwo ©ifcf lo florineo isq 

r-Ii/ow ^arf,t ^bncois airli- no aSiiJ^a o:i actiom 10 iteitiinB&fe Xaloeqa 

.ill ^^-^ .tJ^MssS-a-V .IMa^g,i-?1. lO^J .efqA .IXT ^♦S aHltpoW ,>V .0? 
■iilv^ J> ^&ui'£ alooaza jSdS .qqA .III 8^S ^^^BQ^ ,? TTfi^ {^H .qqA 
,qqA .III £a^i ,fifaX£o.a„.3L„\<&X^ tO^C .qqA. .1X1 X^S tfl08jC»H.^j^.Jtaea 

,SOI ,tqA .XXI 

Xi«ioqfi®o Si sui^fiii^ i»06 isvlfvoei s gfxl^nloqqs isbio ■^•io^jjooX 
E9l>'io ^loiisoolts^ttt moil 8X.59Mo:a ill* :(S^X .q) fclisa sw jfloX^omftnl 
W al aei^ijaq sUd" lo e^xl3l*r 9ji;t aaiwis#«9fc oct soxilvoiq tiro ioa ei ;tl 
exlJ- fflort QnlmiB^^sb oJ v:Xqffii:3 d^iud ^aoicf ssi;t±I stti lo le-tlsa (tost^^fs 
iilct Qi b9lSl'Jin& ai -(ilcfBcfoiq x^isq ©d^ T[»rit©r(w Illcf eri:f lo zSa9ttie'9& 
/oricfiw i>s^nsig xX'i©qoiqEfi bio ridwa tneifv J^jsjI;? j*^ifaxjoa IsXXsi 

if*bio *>f!j ^ci'^vl ^nca bn& :fix©to»o«»tq itolJ^ibnoo a as bnocf 

fefli^. .eeixfto s>iii lo edlie. si^si tuerijlw bseisvsi 9cf XX±w 

eeeq ocf noqi; bsllso Xssl ^on ob ««r» jC*^'! .q) blsa 9w ^tsmlinoo 

jl ,eEjy-rij> 9rij lo ^it^Boi &dS 10 XX±cf '5113' lo ^iitiXicfsiiiHaefc 9tii noqw 

>©Xiiia9 9cf XXlw lli^nlsi Icfsdo^q :f sifi IslX^d r oi bsel rioMw 

eY«<fji aseso oriti lo dfi«s nl ftswollol s«» S^l&Xori elxfP »,l©±Xsi o& 

elil;t lo xiolBxvtG bnlriT esio ^ aaqj tjg ^lOjaLg^"^ .v cucfcgln^ el **,b9ilo 

il;^iw as^owp ^xiOEXli' solraifX, gfllMaerr^ ,^ dawoirii jal^sqa ^iittoo 

BoiaJe biiB ^iffU^ ^stoQ^! .v .oO Xljaagiiiaoli nl snlXin odS X*vonqq« 

l(^OS ^♦OS .qq) 


bill of complaint prior to the antry of an interlocutory decree 
for an injunction, as the entry of such order is justly within 
the discretion of that court, if, in its opinion, it is necessary 
to hold the matters in statu quq until a more complete bearing can 
be had upon the bill. Courts of review are not inclined to 
interfere with this discretion, where it appears that the require- 
ments of the statute on the granting of such interlocutory orders 
have been complied with by the giving of notice and bond on the 
part of the complainant^ 

"High on Injunctions, vol, 2, 4th Ed., sec, I696, says: 
"•Sec. 1696, Appellate courts averse to interfering with 
action of court below; exception to rule. It is, however, worthy 
of note that even in those states where the right of appeal is 
recognized from an order of a couxt of original jurisdiction 
granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction, courts of review 
or of appellate jurisdiction interfere with extreme reluctance 
with the action of the inferior court. Treating the power of 
granting interlocutory injunctions as resting in a sound judicial 
discretion, the courts of appellate jurisdiction are averse to any 
interference with the exercise of that discretion. And to such 
an extent is this aversion manifest, thet it may be stated as a 
general rule prevailing in states where appeals are allowed from 
orders granting or r a fusing injunctions in limine, that the appellate 
or revisory tribunal will not interfere with or control the action 
of the court below in such matters unless it has been guilty of a 
clear abuse of that discretion} and by abuse of discretion within 
the meaning of the rule is meant an error in law coHmiitted by the 
court, * * *t 

"From a reading of the amended and supplemental bill, it 
is apparent that the circuit court has jurisdiction of the subject- 
matter, namely, a trust, if it is a trust, and further that the 
court has jurisdiction of the parties. It is not within the province 
of this court on this appeal to consider the merits of the contro- 


seioeb xioitsooLiBiaX a& lo x'^tc^^a •ri;t oJ loliq, ialnlqeioo lo IXld 

^E^see^osc ^iioxaiqo ail c ,, , . .dJ lo aolidio&lb mH 

..uuo §clii?sd yjsXqiaoo sioa b iWiiw jj^p >- ^^ eaec^iJiiia srii bloii o^ 

aJ i)«aJ:io«; ,o eJieoO ,XI2cf ed;^ ixoqu bAd ©d 

-eilji;pei Sj. : sisilw ^aoU&1^stb zMi Ati^ enelieisil 

sioJbio x'i^o3 isooliQiai dou^ lo soid-HAig snij ao »iss&Bie &i^i lo &iaQm 

edi ao Imod ferns &t>iioa. lo gitlvla s/ri;r x<^ li^lw feeliqaos nescf svisxl 

«;^iisiLJ:j$Iqicos exil lo iij&q, 
iZXnc. td^^X ,!>ss ,.M rfj-^ ^S; .Xov ^axiox^Dfijy^fll no iisJtH" 

X^ia« ^isvswoii ^ . oct aoiiqssx© x^oIbh jixjoo lo goX^os 

at Xasqqs lo jrfgi'i 9£id- eioriw zoiaiz &&oiii at hgvq .tariJ^ eSoa lo 

ftoXd-oi£)ai:'H,«t XjBXils-tio lo ;t uoo a lo 'lobno ixa JHortl JbesXasoos? 

fsjrvsi lo e^iJtioo ^noxj^ocurtax ^^o^tuoaXae^tai xib siiXaiilsi lo ^jjffliaBiii 

9oa&iosiLQi SEsicJ^xs iiJi;<?r 9'i9li»;Jni aQl:ioJLb^ln.Sil eiaXXaqqe lo 10 

1q -[©woq Qd.t sjax;jM9S.i .iiifOu loineloi axW lo jxoxd^os arii rid^iw 

Xsloifeut baiSQ. jiO^d'asi sjb aaoxd^oautfti xio^uooi'ieiai ^tiaain 

•^£LG o;t ©E1SV.S .9'i« isol.tst^sl'rri. '^j-flisqco lo ad-^i/oo Qtii ^aolisiQatb 

dotjc ct bnA ,fiolJ adW" lUiw »aa©nsl!ia3TLt 

2 .^..' r..a9/iht&si s»lzivf& tittiS tJt :^xis:txd oa 

saont f>3woXX ; :ifr..vv aed-^J^e iii ^lll&v&iq cXxri XfiTieasa 

•jiilXeqsiB aclj ^axiv- ^agtijaLLL 41X axxoXd-omitJai af^Xaxilsi 10 anXJnfioa eiafcio 

aoJ^Dfi ail;t ioiiaoQ 'xo rlo'Xw 9i;»lis4^ni joa XXlw Isswdlii -^^oaXv®-! lo 

fi lo x*iXi^"S as#tf p-'- ■ ' f aa^Xffw Bi©;J;J©iff jdauia xii: woXed cJmoo ©xiJ lo 

alLrfJiVf gOLtwe^QBJIL ... ' cr.-, r>: ;ri' ^aotlt-'iri^i^h ifUli lo 98XJd.ii issXo 

etl.t x<^ •■,..'•.+', *-,.\r M lo sflJtiisGin ©d;* 

->to'^t«fx/e Qiii lo jtioi^oXfcBXtJEft ^jsri "^-^f • -^^ .. wii- .-..^^^i aX 

©ocXvo^q add- aM:^ . < ^-^r-.. cj. .. ^. .. -ij -..u t..-ui .0 aolialt&lisil, asri *i»os» 
"i^nr^r-- -' - "''- ©xtj i&btRaco ' r —.. ~^.. ^^ iiaoo zldj lo 


versy between the parties In order to express an opinion as to its 
probable outcome. Upon the hearing oa the demurrers, general and 
special, filed herein by the defendant, a proper occasion will arise 
upon which the matter can be presented to this court for full consid- 
eration, if the defendant so desires." Other eases to the same 
effect might be cited if it were necessary* 

The foregoing cases, in our opinion, are specially applicable 
to the instant case, one of first impression. Defendant Braun suffer- 
ed no substantial harm by the Issuance of the temporary injunction. 

■|Tt is apparent, from her attitude, that she does not propose td , 
I i 

1 willingly pay a dollar of the amounts paid or incurred by plain- \ 

i tiffs, growing out of the last illness of the deceased and the j 
^V expenses of his burial; and it is clear from her attitude that if \ 
\ Yv^l "the temporary injunction were dissolved she would obtain the refund 
p^(\^| moneys and place the same beyond the power of olaintiffs to reach 
(J (\ I by legal- process. Her attitude toward the claims of plaintiffs 

i^ shocks one's sense of justice,\ We are strongly of the opinion "^ 
that the statuSquo should be maintained until the final disposition 
of the cause, j In the meantime, defendant Braun*s conscience, now ^ 
slumbering, may awaken, and she may treat the claims of plaintiffs / 
in 'an equitable way. _ .,.„.,..„..,,.,,...,.^.,..,„,,.._„. ,, 

The interlocutory injunctional order of the Superier 
court of Cook county is affirmed, 

Friend, P. J,, and Sullivan, J,, concur* 


- «8~ 

oaiis XXJsr aQXssaoo -saqoiq & ^JiiJsJiiCslQf) ^rid" xc^ flleiarf bBltl ^Xslosqa 

*XiJSia8eoar( »iaw ij-l 1:1: 5&^io ©cf cfrialxa ;to©'ile 
-^isHlre lt£f«^S iiiefea^lLeG .noise e'jqfid: :^aiil "io sno ,©a»o d'iir>:tafll srid^ od^ 

«£{d^ bti& b^^is^v^b miii lo 8c®fliXt $&»! 9U.S lo ;Jx/o SUlwoig ^8lll;J 
11 d^fifl^ ©jut;<*li^^a iM aeil iselo «1 d^i fiajs |lAlrujrcf alrf lo Bensflsqzs b^, 

iijjj3&i oj «lli:o'nl«Iq lo ^®woc «ili faflo'^txf sisea *iJ* aosilq l>liis sYcaeni Ij^ ^ 
slll^xjBiq 1® 8fli.t«Io 9iiJ feriiswo^ ©o«;J1;?jb nsH .aesaoiq .Icaal x^ f A^ 
aolalqo sdi lo x^8«o^^2 ©la ©W /.©oJtd^cift lo oans* s'aoo 2:rf©oxia 
itoi:;tl8©qail) I&all ®il;J^ llian b^ml&iatmi ©d blJLf©ila oL6ei;d-iiJa «ri* ctaric^ 
wfjs j*ou9l&a{soD s'lUJBnfi: Ssuib£i»1^b ,«afflJjiflstf? arfd" cl ; .9Buho wl:t lo 
alllJelaXq l0 3it(laX» swld" ^jssii" -^isffi ©rfa basi ,jci«o(jawis ^b« ^snliedfiRX/Xa'v..^.^^^^^ 

#X*w eXcfaJ-iwp9 flJB lil, 
lexnsqifS a«y 1© ^<&f>no laaoid'sm/tiii; X'^toJj/ooXi&^fll «iiff 

.fcaEillliB al xSmiOO jlooD lo >tijJoci 
i'?'iU aaOHO lAVIOnmm^WI YH0'fUOOJDi»TlfI 



General Number 9251. 

Attend a nuuber 5, 

APRIL TLHLI, A. D. 1941. 

ROBERT BALL, by huexlczh&ll, 
his fatlier aad next :0rienci , 

Plaintiff -A^sllee , 

/ \ 

-vs- / \^ 

SI.'ITH KiaKEY, Defenlant, and ,.,* 
liEATliA }IA1WEY, | ,„..,^>'*''^"*" 

Def eriianl-Appellant , 

ailTK liAIIiEY, Gross m^ln-^i'i", 

ROBERT BALL, CroES Defendant, 

0? PIAfT COmiTY. 


JL J^ JL 9£%m %^ ^jT 

II0NQRxx3L^ r. 




,- ,.- — 

■ i' '■ '' 

JiJtdgca X 


;X0. J. 

Ju., , 



Tile defendant, Reatlia Ilainey, appeals from a judi^aent 
rendered against iicr in the Circuit Go"art in favor of the plaintiff- 
appellee, Robert 3all. The suit v/es started in a Justice of the 

'eace Goui't, for daj'as 

c^£i CI ay 

sustained in a collision between a car 

driven by the plaintiff and one driven by the aefendant. The car 
driven by the defendant v;as ov.nied by her liusband Snith Hainey, v.iio 
was not v/ith her at zhe tliie of the collision, and he filed and 
prosecuted a Counterclain against PuObert Ball for da-ia,:,es sustained 
by- car in the collision. 

Before the Justice of the Peace, the jury found the issues 
in favor of the defendants. No, judg-ient of any kind vras entered on 

f\ 5 


.a .1 SxiyiAi^Q^v 

the veruiot. An appeal v/as taken to the Circ\iit Court, The record 
of thct court shows the xirst Order to be the setting; of the case 
for trial bj agreement. After "oIiIb Order yras entered, the defendants 
entered a linlted appearance and iioved to set aside and vacate the 
Order already entered, setting the case for trial. In support of 
caid raotlon, defendants filed an affidavit v;hlch set forth;that on 
Decer-iber 9, 1939 counsel for plaintiff nade a notion to nave tiie 
cause set for trial in open court without any notice to the Attorneys 
for the defendant; that at the tine the motion v-as called up before 
the court the senior laeiiber of the law fir;:i, representing the defen- 
dants as attorneys, vrao not .resent; that the junior rnenber stated 
to the court that they could not be ready for trial on the date 
conteMplated; that they did not consent to the Order; that the 
junior neaber was entirely unfa'aillar \:ith the case and reaained 
silent viien the Order v.-as entered; tliat the Order setting the case 
v/as entered before the defendants had entered their a^^pearance, and 
tiaat the appeal should be disL'iissed for the reason that no judgment 
had been entered before the .Justice of the Peace, 

There rrast be an entry of sone hind of a jud=j^cnt by the 
Justice of the Peace before there can be an appeal tahen to "tiie 
Circuit Goiirt, 111. Aev. 3tat., Chap. 79, Para. 116, Gee. 1. 
The authority for tahini; appeals fror. justices of the peace to 
higher courts is pui-ely statutory and can be executed only in the 
manner prescribed oy the statute. The statute only provides that 
appeals .nay be taj-ien fron jud^riaents rendered by justices and ;iot 
fron verdicts of jujries in cases tried before then, Ch"arch v, 
Stunkard, IGl 111. App . 14S; Conant v. .;atts, 196 111, App. 5^9. 

In the case of Mogue v. Ein--:, 2L5 111, App, 311, ^ this 
court said, "It is true no for:ial words are required of a justice 
of the peace in entering judgnent, but it is necessary that soine 
sind of a judgnent be entered; pthervvdse tlier-e is nothing to appeal 

i'iL.ill Jo LeivJ . 

liCHB. blUik 

.:i *'iijii :,r-:90©Q 

' :y£<^ ■ ^^ >u 'I V-* iiu ■. aaw , Id inC j nalle 

t<»ii^-- .&»•£» J"C^-' ■./•ou b&To^ne aa* 


cf*Tr»^0*rT TirT-Tisr 

BS iiv 

>uut» dc 

fron ajid tiie court appealed to ac-mires no jiiricj diction of the case. 
Had appellants proceeded to trial ■imder a general a ipearance and 
vdthout any raotioa to dis;:iiss, ^iiey v/ould not nov/ be in position to 
raiae this ouestion, out their limted entry of a oearance and 
motion to dis-iiss saved this question for reviev/ by this court." 

In the case of Deriilly v. Grrosrenaud, 201 111. 272; no 
transcript vv'bs furnished on appeal frora the justice of the peace to 
the clrcait court. Objection was made by the defendant as to the 
Jurisdiction of tiie court for v/ant of traiscript . The court proceed- 
ed to trial, and there v;as a verdict ia favor of the plaintiff. The 
statute requires that a transcript of the Justice's docket be filed 
v;ith the cleric of the court to v/hich the ap^peal is taken. Our 
Suprene Court in th^at opinion stated, "Proceedings in the Circuit 
Court are based on the traniL-crlpt, and it has uniforialy been held 
that without a transcript of the proceedings before the justice, the 
circuit couir-t has no jurisdiction of the subject rmtter. The lav/ 
conferring jurisdiction on the circuit court provides for the 
transfer of the cause to tliat court, and vrhen an appeal lias been 
taken the court may obtain Jiirisdic tion of the subject i.iatter by 
requiring a transcript to be filed, but until that is done it v;ill 
have no jurisaicti'jn to try the cause. The circuit court was wanting 
in jurisdiction of the subject matter, and that vvas an objection 
which couJ.d not be waived. As a riatter of fact, the objection to 
the jurisdiction v/as nade v/hen the case was called for trial. The 
Judgment being an absolute nullity, all proceedings under it v;ere 

A sinilar situation is presented in the case now before 
us. The statute requires the entry of a judgment by the justice of 
the peace, before there can be an appeal. The objection v/as raised 
in the Circuit Court before trial, by a raotion to aisiiiss the appeal 
for want of jurisdiction, v/hich raotion should have been allowed by 

io lo iOVBl ill ^toifeiev fi aiiw e-i^di &fl9- «iaiat od fee 
r ea^ d-i &tte t^^ltoB&B^i &^ no ^e»aaatf arcB intso^ 

-CO iioiiiw 

- 4 - 
tiie circuit court. 

The judgiierit of the Circuit Court is reversed and cause 
reaanded to that Court vdth directions to disuiss the a-)Deal. 



General iruiiber 92S2, 


Agenda nunber 2, 


'\^ ATRIL TE?^^.^. D. 1941. V 


Jilllii!: A. LAKE, S:^cutor^^^ 
of the Sstate Jf Cliarl^ 
P , : lundy J, D e c^a s ed , / 


JL srl,* 





Tills is an appeal frari a judgnent of the Circuit Coiirt, 



based on the verdict of a jurj, :;:iviniT; the plaintiff ^11.50 on a 
clain nhe hed filed in the Probate Court, for Zi.66 da^-'c v;ori: at 
the rate of $2,00 per day, for nursing the v.lfe of Charles P. 
I'undy, covering a period of five years, — during all of wiiich tine 
Krs. Mundy vrae a helplesa invalid. 

The plaintiff, Lena lloberts, was a sister of Mrs, ;;undy, 
and lived close to the Ijindy hone. The plaintiff based her claliii 
on an express ajrcs-ent **r. "undy \,h.ereLy he agreed to pay her 
for her cervices, I-s, l.'undy died February 28, 193S. lii*. Jilundy 
died a little over a yesr after the death of Mrs. Hundy. The clain 
v/as filed against tjie estate of Charles P. :"uncly on June 2, 1939. 
The defense clairis, that the services consisted of voluntary aid 
Siven at the tiiae of i.lrs, Robert's visits to her sistei' I^rs. :.:undy, 
which do not constitute an eraploy.aent; tha', the proofs failed to 
shov/ an cXDross contract, aid that a ccttl*»^.ont ra- "a?.e betv;een 


..:^v.r .n- ^^. 

«Tl'Vil/C/i> 'AOxJ-L^-TjiLi.'^ 

n .AJ.I 

1.9 qqA 

3S i.1 

« t^ii*-- 



," ■? cMjjo.iiD afU" to drisffisfitft fi isoTit Issqqs ns al ai:"'' 

"Sri* llid-rtlfslq sxiJ" anivls t^i^l *» "io cfolfciav ad* no fiaaa'tf 

.'^ aaliBriO to e"j;iv/ 9ff;f Salsiirn toI ,Xjb£) leq l lit:'.'! 

^7:li Jloiiiv^ to 111- t^>TXT5-~,s-TS9v sv^t io fibl-f^q s sr 

.> . :,: V li caslqiorl b SBT/Y^n- 

.:i-:.Io 3dT .\5.Ci- :o . (i#sc >;J.ts n yo oliill a t>: 

,\;>'ni;.: .any. ':^©^.'. od' Si^isiv a^^asefo. 

isa&wJ;-.^ . -rrqxs -Ci* -wvila 

- 2 - 

Mrs, liundy and the plaintiff, after the death of !Irc. Muiidy, by 
giving the household f nraittti-e to her. Several v/itnesses testified 
to declarations raado by J'undy during his, — in effect 
that Jdrs. Roberts was a great help in the care of his vdfe, and that 
he would see that siie v/as tatcen care of. There VTerc alao several 
\vltnesBes viio testified to TTeoting one eveaing at the I'J'ondy home, 
shortly after the death of Itrs. Jamdy, and that vriiile the/ v/ere 
there, other people cano to buy sono of the articles of furnit'.ire. 
At this tine, the plaintiff and Mr, Mundy were present, axid ilr. 
ilundy iuouired if lli's. Roberta T,vDuld be sntlsfied if she haa her 
pick of the ft2rE.iture for her services as co apensation for all she 
had done for him, and that she rex:>lied that she vjouIu be ;;£>re than 

The plaintiff attenpted to ncet the defendant's proof on 
the Gettleiient, by statin;:;: first, that the conversation did not tahe 
place, and second, that if it did, it had reference to soae srall 
cash iteriS she iiad paid out for :.'r. Lluxidy being insurance, nedicine, 
*«8^etc. The evidence disclosed that I.Ir. Mundy's habits on fai'iily 
expenses vvere very prvoropt; that he usually paid then in casii; that 
he paid his ov;a bills and had a fair bcink bal»j_ace, and that he hept 
the fanily expenses paid up. 

I'lr, IviUndy died testate, leavin;-r, all his property to the 
defendant herein, Kiraia Lane, a half brot,' 

Gonpiaint is jade on the adi'iission and exclusion of 
evidence end on one instruction, nothing is pointed out here, 
\vhich is serious enou^ii to cause reversible error. The evidence 
v/as conflicting on the issues raised, and v/as of a peculiar nature 
that shoiild be settled by a .jury, —they heii\Q in the sphere that is 
related to the doriestic affairs of the faiiily and the hone, of v;hich 
Most jurors are thorou-i-hly fa:iiliar, as well as the rivtdrles and 
contentions that co v/ith different sets of relatives; and where old 
people die v.lthout any children and the collaterals on several sides 

n/yiJ- : .- 'Slid' 5a -:o1 eaob to 

.1:. U ^fiilu 

+ T 9*r©w adaaeqis* 

Jq9>: s; ^a0 ,f>0iUil6C 7. ixci flwo 8 Id bl^q, ad 

10 itclE .IcjmoO 

, sisfi jj.:: MouTjajai «to ao baa ooi.. 

a ,r)©l?l«rti: a©08Bi art* uc 

•0 STXiS'i'iB oid'a . .• b9,^6j 

- 3 - 

are grasping for the renalning assets. 

The j^jry having decidecl tiie issues and fixed tin.- uai'iages 
at vll.SO, vre are iiot inclined to Interfere witii their decision 
and the Judgsieut of the Circuit CoixTt of Ytrriilion County is hereby 
aff irr-ied. 


vtuL Sii" 




^^^to^or^rm, A. D. *1940 *\'*' 

1 \ 


/ i. 


5^ «-,■* <*■■*■■? 'Van w>-. 

y^ ' Ai^llant 


dminlstratrlx of the 
Istate of Keis 0, Rosene, 


/ I 








Nels 0, Hosene died on October 25, 1937 and at the time of 
hia' deatli and for th.lrty-four years prior thereto he had lived, as 
a tenant .farmer, on a farm of 320 acres in Whiteside County, Illinois. 
He left a son, Clarence Rosone, and a daughter Irodda I-Iarle Rosene who 
was duly appointed adnlnla tratrlx of hia estate. 

On October 11, 1938 the son, Clarence, filed a clain agi'TiregatlnE 
$1266«00 4ai:ain3t his father's estate for wa-^ea due liin for lapor on the 
farm for the years 1933 to 1937 inclusive. The anount he claimed to be 



g9 .r-M AO, 

00 5 e .CM 

.a.L lU 'i.?l'.UJ ..:!.(./ 

.iTev Ti!«;oj:>i^ 




,:'III33GH 3lHAil M 

4»n©Boa .0 Bleu lo acta: 

, ®e 

to « 

c.i'w en 6 CO ; 

©cf ocf fiemla. 

adodoO no Jbelb ©neeoH .0 bIsU 

i^eb Eli 

-doctoO nO 


VSOI c. vtaQx erfct lot nrts' 

diU9 him for 1933 was #375.00, i or 1954 '^^275. 00, for 1935 ;i^2I6.00 and 
for 1936 and 1937, oach year $200. 00. Certain crodltora of the deceased 
filed objections thereto and the record racitea that upon the hearln,^ in 
the county court the claimant offered no evidence in support of hia claim 
and It was disallowed. Upon appeal to the circuit court, an appearance 
waa entered by attorneys for six named creditors in oppoaition to the 
claim and a hearing had oefor-o the court and jury. At the close of 
claimant's evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant and 
the court, after denyln;- a motion for a jud,5nant non obstante verdirto, 
rendered Judgment on the verdict » Subsequently, a motion for a new 
trial waa denied and the claimant appeals. 

Appellant filed in this court a motion bo strike the brief 
and argument for the objecting creditors, which motion was taken with 
the case. Section 25 of the Civil Practice Act (111. r>ev, Stat. 1939, 
chap. 110, par. 149) provides: "Where a person not a party, hua an 
interest or title which the Judgment nay affect, the court on appli- 
cation shall direct hin to be made a party." The Probate Act, Sec. 348 
Cbap, 3, Par. 19G, 111. Kov, St. 1939) provides that "The executor, 
administrator, .i^uardian or conservator or any other person wlioae rights 
rtiay be effected by the allovjanco of a claim may iile pleadln.'i^s with 
the clerk of the court," In the instant case the claim of appellant 
is of the third class. It seems to be agreed that the estate is in- 
sufficient to pay it and the claims of the other crodltora in lull. 
?/hlla it does not appear that the provisions of the statute were formally 
followed, the objecting creditors entered their appearance, and partici- 
pated in the trial without any objection by appellant, and were served 
with copies of the abstract and briefs on this appeal. It is an almost 
universal rule at law as well as in equity that a court may allow other 
persons than those before the court to come in aa parties, to the end tha' 
substantial Justice may be done, (arewenig v. American Sakin^j Co., 293 


00«3IS| 3£QI )0.eVfi$ asw o ild •« 

ban oo'eiuiici 8noi;fo©(,^o fceii 

■ jewollasib sbw ;fl br 
eri. &X«*^'^o^i'* X^ beiedn© bj 

oflAbn©"'. b^ioetlb itisoo edS eonoblv© e'^namJeJ 

"■rjiOb 'iGcfla ^dicoo ©c 
^\5,Xuii©ijpc*aujjfc »iji>lb-: io dneinsbi/t be-iobni 

otfibeio ^'iliofeti*^ -.emtrai^ br 

-^ %^ -^ 

. :i<co odd lo ^n^lo 
. ^2sXo brflfK 

."■■■- ii 
yI [ iCjA JCi^. soon 3J[ oXIf 

^;oj]3 oSssi laeie 

111. App. 604.) The record ar ov/a the objecting]; creditors v/ere treated 
in the trial court as partiea, both l)\ the court and by appellant, Tho 
quoted portion of the statute requires the court to :rant applications 
of interested parties to be made parties, taut it does not purport to 
prohibit pcriions not forrial parties from parti clpatin.i]; in the proceedings. 
Under these circumstances the motion to strike the brief and ar.rrunerxt 
of the objecting creditors is denied. 

The adr.inistratrix, a daughter of the decedent, who lived with 
him, \';aa called as an adverse vltness under the provisions of section 
60 of the Civil Practice act. She testiflcjd WMX that decedent was a 
tenant farmer of 320 acros frotti 1903 until his deatl-ij that appellant 
lived on the farm all that time except during the farm year of 1924- 
1925 when he lived in the nearby village of Tampico; that he did the 
labor of a farm hand from 1903 until bis father's death; that in December, 
1924, the decedent contracted with appellant to pa3'- him A575,00 per annum 
for his v/ork; that in 1950 the payments v/ere reduced to v540.00 per year 
and w«ro to be credited with the proceeds of ducks and ij;eese raised and 
sold by appellant and that appellant had no interest in the other poultry 
raised on the farm. 

The witness further testified that she y/as in charge and kept the 
books for her father; that her father never made any entries therein, and 
when he told her to put something down, she did so; that she posted the 
checks whenever they caaa in from the bank, about once a nonth, and '.'/rote 
all the checks there v/ero to v/rite; that the book produced on the trial 
started in January 1929, carrj/in.-^ forward a balance due appellant as shown 
by another book; that the book produced contained all r.he transactions re- 
la tinr, to the account of appellant, and embodied other transactions of 
her father with other people, co-^-ering practically all that took place 
on tho farm; that the entries were m'sde on their purported dates; that 
Kost of them were made at the time they should have been made, but once 


5#3 B«>« 

sET»\'bt 3 aw .«i 

• o bevlX 

Il^nu 5091 motl fenari xal«1i^« lo. lod*X 

::>©;? OBTinoo ;Jn©Jbeo8fe ©ricf ^i'SGl 

.arf.-^ bnB :?naIIoQqis y*^ ^-^^^ 

fcflc ^ni^T. ari;J fieri;?!;. . . oo 

edjJ b»t? ^ff bio;} ori nariw 

lorio erid I. IB 
nwc. . e 

In a v/hlle, maybe, sone were carried over for a few months and then made; 
that her father had access to the book all the time, and looked at It and 
examined Itj that she Viad conversations with him as to whether the account 
of appellant a3 shown by the books was correct. She was not permitted to 
state the conversations, and the pai^es of the book relating to appellant's 
account were denied admission in evidence. 

The account of appell»Pt in the book shov/g detailed amounts 
as to cash and checks paid appellant. The items for ducks and geese 
3 old tire char/jed in a lump sum each year. These latter amounts wore taken 
from another book of detailed sales ol poultry. In which appellant inade 
entries. This book was not produced upon the trial or offered in evidence, 
The witness testified she knew the amounts in the book kept by l-ier were 
correct; that if appellant sold ducks she knew the anount, because she 
saw the record, and helped pick_, count and pack them, saw appellant put 
the entries in the book, someti-nes saw the checks he received from people, 
and when he sold for cash she thought she would knovr if he failed to tell 
hor about any ducks sold, because she Iznevi how many he had and how many 
he took to tovm; tl'ia t to her knowled.-^e he told the trut'-i about it. During 
her testimony she said that from her own knowled.^^e, by refreshing her 
recollection iron the book, she knew what the credit to appellant for 
poultry was durin,:^ the five year period. She said the poultry credit 
was itemized in the other book, and her only knowledge was in looking at 
the book kept by her and seeing the totals copied frcxn the other book* 
Appellee attaches much ijr.portance to this last statement, but considered 
with her ov;n positive testimony as to her knowledge on the subject, it 
is obvious she merely meant to say that without rsferrin.;:; to the other 
book her testimony must be confined to the entries in the book kept by 


■«.JBi>C»U ^JJAt 

(7(3»fe tr«* Jtroefi 

■ca-^ aria ,vf '■* moil qolcfoailoo^ 

,--,-'-»„. al«: + ^I.o^ nwo ""lOri ciilt 
.. one Ewoivcfo e^J 

By refreshing her recollection iTom the book kept/her, she 

testified to the amount of tha poultry crodlt in each of the five 

years. The olalm that ahe read tho amounts from t\iQ book, Inatoad of 

refreshing her recollection from it is vilthout norlt. Tiie record ahov/e 

the contrary is true. It la well ;3ettloi that a witness may refresh 

bin metnory from writings « (Diamond Glue Company v. Wletzychowaki, 227 

111. 558.) She testified that the cash paid appellant^ arsountint": to 

$1600,77, was credited on unpaid v^a^ea due prior to 1933 » 

Appellee and the objecting crejditors insist that inagrauch as 
tho balance duo each year, rs shown by the book to be due appollantp waa 
not carried forward Into tho next year's account, it cannot be re^-arded 
as a running account, and the balance due each year is presuaiad to be 
paid, Tho boo]c shows the balance due each year. It ,vas kept by an 
unskilled person and her teatimony sufficiently showa that each balance 
la still unpaid. 

Appellee and the objecting creditors Invoke the familiar rule 
that a creditor cannot introduce ':1s books in evidance except ho prove 
they are books of original entry, made in tb© usual course of business, 
and ere true and correct. The proofs show that the witness was in charge 
of her father's business, wrote his checks and kept his books, not only 
as to appellant *s account, but &b to practically every tr'ansaction of 
the farm business* that the ontries ¥,'ere true and correct, and ware 
made by her as directed by hlmj that he always had access to the book and 
examined it. These facts show the witness was the agent of decedent, and 
that her book-keeping was done in that capacity. Tlie account of 'Appellan 
by debits and credits, shows the amount due ap-!>ellant each yaar. This 
is an admission against interest. The rule invoked by appellee and the 
objecting creditors does not apply to books of a defendant sought to 
be introduced by a plaintiff as an adriiaaion a.::ainnt interest. (Dows v. 
Napor, 91 111. 44j Gawlay v. People, 95 id. 249; Adair v, Adair Printing 
Co., 162 III. App.511; Second FJ,& I. Building Association v, Cochrane, 



.-.-iae'iloi -^a 


^enw«©:J e.fp f.S"^ .XII 

■ ' ■ . r; ; ' \i j3 2 3 

5'tcorf i^T 


erf;f trrn s?i;. 

.V -TOC) ,rt2"' 


«:t5»n,! ' .■aw 

-> .1X1 IQ »i«qfi»I 
: Jo, q>4A .XXI 281 ^.OO 

103 id. 29; vJlgnor© on Evldenoo, (3d ed.) par. 1557 (2). Admlasiona of 
a dscadant againat interest are competent evidence on a trial of a 
claim a.fjalnat an oatato. (Schell, Admr,, v, \7eavor, 225 111. 159.) 
Such admissions include not only book entries, but other afcatemanta of 
fact, verbal or written. (HughQa v, 5']ldor&do C.&M. Co., 197 ill. App. 
250.) Under these holdings it was error to refuse to allow the patjes 
•^f the book showin;-;; appellant's account to be admitted in evidence. If 
the account contains any entry not properly attributable to the contract 
between appellant and decedent and the claim lilsd, aucri irems can be 
eliminated upon another trial. 

The application of appellant's wife, and appellant's notion 
entered in the circuit court that she be mads a p9.rty to this proceeding 
were accompanied by affidavits to the effect that she was a party to 
the contract ^rith decedent j that as a part of the consideration for the 
wages agreed to be paid appellant she a.r-reod v^fith the decedent to help 
with the housework, and pursuant tt.eroto did aaaiat in auch workj tliat 
she and appollant have four minor criildrsn and that tlie judgment will 
directly affect her interests. It v/ill be noted that neither the 
application or motion alleges that she vms to receive dxij pay for such 
services, but on the contrary show the payments were to be made to 
appellant. No fact is alleged v;hich ahov/s she has any interost in the 
subject matter which will bo affected by the judgisent, or that the 
contract to pay appellant only should not be carried out. The court 
did not err in denying her application to oe made a party. 

The jud^raent is reversed and the cause is remanded with diroctions 
to sustain appellant's motion lor a new trial. 

Reversed and remanded witli directions. 

oiasJtW ;es ,bl 501 
J»»^©jfli ianlas* ^iJ©f>&3f^ 


.•rows *:*(<. ."rtiw 

InsIXeqqit Las 

■jiii '10 cciJiioIXqq* 
-I© ?ofl Jblb 




Sf NO. 9627 


1 1/I.A. 542 

»OVE, J, 

On June 29, 1935 appellant, Joanne Semrow, filed h©r complaint 
;o recover from appelloo damages which she allat^ad she sustained by 
'eaaon of his breach of bis precise to marry her* In the aamo complaint, 
;h© father of appellant aouxi^t to recover damagos he alleged he sustained, 
jecauae appellee had debauched his daughter and he had been deprived of 
lor services. 3y his answer, api^llee admitted he had had sexual inter- 
jourse with appellant/ that she became ore^jnant and gave birth to a child, 
3ut alleged that he paid appellant $705.00 in full satisfaction of a judgment 
rendered a^^alnst him in a bastardy proceeding, and apeciflcally denied that 
le ever at any time requested her to marry hlr. or ever at any time promised 


^I^G *k.k::sX. 1 

^ifflfST X^'^ '■, 

T.VM''"-' ?n.'Ti 

-O n'osoicf i: oBa 


sJBlioqqjB 6iflq ed cta^cl x>es©i--- 
Mljseociq \;MAdiijKcf a fli mid 4enl«^s Mneba 

o marry her. 

The issues made by the pleadln^^a were submitted to a Jury and 
t the close of the evidence for the plaintiffs, the jury, in obedience 
o a peremptory instruction, found the issues against the plaintiff, 
fank Semrow, the father, and the Judgment rendered on that finding is 
ot questioned on this appeal. The trial proceeded and at the conclusion 
f all the evidence, the Jury returned a verdict against the remaining 
laintiff, Joanne Serarow and from the judgment rendered against her on 
liat verdict, the plaintiff, Joanne Semrow appeals. 

The points relied upon for reversal are four, first, that the 
ardict and judgment are against the manifest weight of the evidence, 
acond, that the court erred in giving the second, fifth, seventh and 
Leventh Instructions offered on behalf of the defendant. Third, that 
.he court erred in its rulings on the admission and rejection of testinony; 
■nd fourth, that counsel for the defendant was guilty of improper conduct 
.n the presence of the jury, 

Counael for appellant, however, has abandoned this fourth point 

LS his argument is divided into three parts, one of which is devoted to 

lis contention that the verdict and iudgraent is against the raantfeat weight 

>f the evidence; another, that instructions two, five and seven were 

irroneous and under his third and last division of his arguraent,/he says 1st 

'The court comraitted reversible error in its rulings on the admission 

md rejection of testimony. Objections to incompetent evidence, even though 

lustained, do not alv/ays cure the harm done. Such testimony may Influence 

;he Jury, notwithstanding the effort of the court to counteract it." 

?he evidence of which counsel complains or what its character or nature v/aa, 

lowhere appears in the brief or argument of counsel, nor does counsel advise 




bebQ90onq iRt -'^ ^^ beaoldzeup i 

.,„»„.»^«,^. -olin&v ■■A ©ricf ,©3n©Mve orf;t IIb 

Loiebm^'i c;n»!nsfc«'t ^^^ *aofl fcfifi wo-ineE onftBoL ^lll^tnii 

. „ .^ . 1 ftfj/is"^ r :^ bei ell sno 1 i aifi;* Bfli ii;fn«> 

:+nfc'fcrjeo lace^^fl-^ .ii'0fl«bn»l^ ol Ceomjoo :f0ricf 4rfdiycl t: 

oftno.6ft.p0f- BBxi ^levQWOri ^dnfllltjqqfi lol lesnt/oO 

arfJtorf# t^offoMva Sdc» 


-> ; er^\Srtfe«it;j.«te 8irf it> itb i IrfS eld lobittw bus ex;oeno»i 

XdiEiev^i b»:J.-tlJoiDfioo rfiJEfo?> (Hi 

^S" ^^J!;jW lo ©onebiv© « 

this court of what the conduct of opposing counael consisted of, to which 
he objects or where in the abstract or in the record could any remarks of 
counsel or objectionable conduct be found. In this condition of the record, 
the third and fourth errors relied upon for reversal nust be treated aa 
having been abandoned. Objections to Improper arf^unent cannot be con- 
sidered on review v/here no specific objections were made at the time of 
the argument and the remarks complained oi are not stiown by the abstract. 
People V, McDonald, 3G5 111, 233, 

In the instant case no motion for a nev; trial was made. 
Alleged errors on the admission or rejection of evidence, where the rul- 
ings of the court thereon have been excepted to and incorporated in the 
report of proceedings are open for reviev; even though no motion for a 
new trial was made. The People v. Qabrys, 329 111. 101. But in the 
absence of a motion for a new trial whether the verdict and judgment are 
against the manifest v/eii3ht of the evidence are not properly before the 
court. Armour v, Penn. R.R. Co.^ 353 111. 575. In Kuber v. Van Schaack- 
Mutual, Inc., 36& 111, 142, our supreme court said; "Ho motion for a 
new trial was made and we have held that the question of the sufr'tciency 
of the evidence to support the verdict of a jury and the judgment rendered 
thereon is not open to review unless the question has first been presented 
to the trial court by such a motion. It is the duty of litir'iants to seek 
this mode ol relief in the trial court before praying an appeal. Chicago, 
Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co., v. Hasel.vood, 194 111. 69." In 
Qulllman v. Cockram, 253 111. App. 413, the court said: "In a jury trial 
if it is desired to save for review the question of the sufficiency of the 
evidence to sustain the verdict, the losing party must make a motion for 
a new trial, and upon it being overruled, except to said ruling, and include 
such motion, order overruling the same and his exception thereto, to-?;ether 
with the evidence, in a bill of exceptions. Yarber v. Chicago and A. R. Co., 
235 111. 589; People v. aabrys, 329 111, 101," 

" ■ ; . ^^moo all 

^■^pl bai fnttii 9t 

i^ifi aaoiao&^cit) diliodv . ©riw vvelvsi no ije'seiu 

•sniBlqtfiOD itjA^iaUB' -'.a cfnenu/gir 

• ?;o:- .ill c.5o ^AjifenoQc vio* 

liotto sv«d nooned^i tf-xi/oo orij lo egi 
'SIS e^-niboijoonq lo ;jTcoqt 

"1. noli!'.- aonoav^i^u.. . - . . . i4j'orMA *iaw< 

.j» a« iia4<i :fon si no^io; 
, : ■) ©Jbooi 

Sc;2 ^mnz^'-: :\z:lili 

et; ncqxf tns ^ialTrf wen 

..'.Xixiiiovo neMo ,noi;Join doi 
^©onoMve evit ncfJ 

The remaining error relied upon has to do vi?Ith the giving 
of three instructions on behalf of api^llee. We b.avo exarained these 
instructions, and while not absolutely correct in all respects, we believe 
they are substantially so and that the jury v7as fairly instructed upon the 
issues. Furthermore, the record discloses that none of the instructions 
lov complained of were objected to In the trial court nor did appellant 
axcept to any of them being given. In this state of the record, appellant 
La in no position to complain of the instructions for the first time in this 
jourt. Bellomy v. Bruce, 303 111. App. 349 at page 561. While the charge 
Df the court tc the jury is always subject to review on appeal or error 
without a motion for a new trials yet the correctness of the charge must 
36 saved for review by appropriate objections and exceptions. Oil Belt 
^y. Co. v. Lewis, 259 111. 108. (110). As wo find no reversible error in 
;hl3 record, the judgment will be affirmad. 

Judgment affirmed. 

•Ijalqmc ' ' -- - 

•^'■^ .''''•' .Ill G3S ,fc'r.r..,. . . 

Term Ko, 41?-T3 

October Term, A. D. 1941 


OCT 2 7 1941 


MRS. ADOLPH HEIG^, Asslr,npe ) ^..„„«»*-— 
of DAVE DAN^^fK cloJj^Q#f-**T" 
bus Ine s s as ii>€T'"i|!Jll!^¥f^ C 0; ■ • 
MISSION G^fTu ffiie Cit^^ 
and .jSMfe of Ne¥//York, | 


Apf)ellee, | ) 

Mansfield, Mo., 

o. 2. 

./I % 

Apjfeal fy^rn 

she Oily Court 
of 1*6 City of 
E|fst St, Louis, 





l.A. 603 


This is an appeal frop. an Order of tr.e City Court of the 
City of East St, Louis, in favor of Appellee, -'RS. ADOLPH HEICKE 
(hereinafter called Plaintiff), and against the Appellant, BANK OP 
MANSFIELD of T/ansfleld, ivio. (hereinafter called Defendant), in tbe 
sum of |;598.44 (including costs and interest) and in which was in- 
cluded a conditional judgment against another bank, as garnishee. 
The Order of Court likewise excluded all evidence and exnibits re- 
lative to "mdtness Karp," 

The action ar6se as the result of transactions between Ellis, w': o was in the poultry business at '.'smsf ield, Missouri, 
and a Dave Danfiger, who did a coismlssion business under the narie of 
Central Goriimission Co«ipany, in Hew York City. The evidence disclosed 
that lave 1'llis t^ad transacted business with the said Dave Danziger, 




liixii£--ai': > 


and th.e method by which such business wovld be transacted would be 
substantially as follows: Dave Ellis v/ou.ld purchase poultry in the 
neigr.borhood of ^Mansfield, iv'issouri, and then ship the poultry in 
cairloac lots to Danzi^jer in New York, with sight draft and bill of 
lading attached, A nu:niber of jtransactions between Ellis and Dan- 
ziger m'ere completed without the intervention of tne defendant. 
Bank of Mansfield. The poultry was shipped on a commission basis. 

After Danzijer had paid the amount of the sight draft, he would in 
turn dispose of the poultry, and if Ellis was entitled to a balance 
over and above the amount of the sight draft, Dan7;iger would pay such 
sujfi to him, and if there was a deficiency, a statement of the amount 
of the overdraft would be mailed to Ellis. There was testimony on 
/ behalf of Ellis that he had dealt with one TTorris Karp before he began 
I dealing with Danziger, and that he had been solicited by Karp to do 

business with Danzi^er, after Karp ceased to do Business as a repre- 
■■ sentative of the organization with which Ellis b^ad previo-^isly dealt. 

Ellis testified that all of bis transactions with Danzi,:^er were had -u^CC^ 
and throug:h Karp. Karp did not testify. X^f^j;^ 

In December of 1934, ,?']llis teetified that he sought to 
seciire a loan from Danzlger's organization to finance bis operations, 
but ',^;as unsuccessful, .and it was sugge£ted^^_^toJilm-4>pj:^s-i^^ by 
Karp) til at be make arrange faents with the Mansfield Bank to draw drafts 
on cars ?;hlch the Danzlger organization viTOuld honor at sight, indi- 

cating there would be no trouble at New York with such drafts. 

/in 1935, Ellis made an arrsngement with tbe Bank of ''tansfield by 
whicb he wo^-ld be allowed to si\ip the poultry, with si;^ht draft 
attached to a bill of lacking, the Bank bei n^i>- deg j„,gft§,j;; £cl as^ co^ s i ^or 

\ and consignee in the bilA«.,CLf lading. It was stated that tills was for 
the purpose of preventin=>- Ellis from. Exercising any right of sto-page 
in transitu, or from dlvertln^j; the shipment, after Ellis received 

\ advancements from the Bank on the draft drawn on Danzlger's organ- 



— Iipo 

■ : ti . I r'd' f" V R ^ o .f f p. a i-f 
- .-. _II':[ 

- , i je earfoee 

•.sec ou 3 iUJ a£ .'/ .^ r./d' 

'■v ?.iJ80 no 




Izatlon, The drafts drawn on these sl:ilpments (made in 1935) would 
be directed to Danziger's or "anization, payable to the order of the 
Bank of Iv'ansfield, and would be si i;ned by Elll?., It was stated by 
Ellis, and the Bank, that the method of ship^nent or the drawing of 
drafts did not alter previous arrangements a_s_^,t2,.,j;;a»„.tL0^Ellls, 
and j/anziger continued to makeup ayments and reports to Ellis. 

Danziger testified in this case that he made such payrrients 
because of a telephone conversation v;ith Ellis, and someone else at 
the Bank of i-'ansfield. There v;as no evidence, other than the state- 
ment of Danziger, trat anyone tro::- the Bani-r had ever had any conver- 
sation with him, and it was likewise shown on behalf of the Bank that 
it had nffver at any time received statements from Danziger concerning 
the shi]OiTients of poultry, nor were any payments ever made to the Bank 
by Danziger. Danziger continued to -riail checks for snrpl-osages to 
j'llis until a deficiency occurred on the car in question. 

The action before the Court in the instant case concerns 
one shipment. Ellis loaded a car of poultry, designating the Bank 
of fvlansfield as consignor and consignee, and initialled the bill of 
lading Iximself. The snipment arrived in llevi York, and on February 15, 
1935, Daiiziger's organizatio:: rendered an account s-ales showing, "Sold 
for account of Dave Ellis Produce Company." Such statement shows 
that the particular shipnent resulted in an overdraft of 4-491.51, from 
whic. was deducted a credit due to Dave Ellis Produce Company, and to 
which was added an old overdraft, "laking the accountt stated aainst 
the Dave Ellis Produce Company in the sum of |8'79.14. Thereafter, on 
February 19, Danziger' s organization telegraphed Ellis with r-^^ference 
to another ship -ent, and thereafter he received further inquiries as 
to the S''ipping of additional poultry. Ellis never paid Danziger, 
nor his organization, the amount of the overdraftsi There was some 
testimony by Ellis thut Earp conferred with him with reference to the 
overdraft which he owed to DarVzlger, and likewise, some evidence of 


xd-Biij^iBsJb tT^i+lToq Xo MBfi B beb&Ql ill 
to I.- aellBldia.i . aa>i4®«oo I>«b aonslsac .aJtlsnBiv' lo 

o:t yx<i 3XII3 .evjad Oct &ub ;iXbeio b .f>9ctr>.cr£>©r . Lrfw 

no ^iF ; .M,iV8ci| la ffii/s 9fii rxl if^^Bqmo;:;^ ©oci^pi^.' 8 '•IX ^^ axii 

^1e^2.j:^■l^Q blBOj_ -i^Vftr* R r.(.i , . Luoq, l&ciot:ilb 

■^"^oe p,Bn PteffT 4a- o ©rf:} lo ct'fitroms «rfd' jnoMBJ^irfsjiio ei-d 'ion 

letters written by Karp, on behalf of Danzlger's orp^anization, to 
Ellis, Thereafter, Daiizig'^r asBip;ned his claim to his niece, the 
Plaintiff, Mrs. Adolph 'F'eicke, and soui3;ht to collect from the defend- 
ant. Bank of ^/iansfield, Missouri, by an attachment suit making an 
Illinois bank, where the Defendant had a deposit^ a garnishee. 

Plaintiff, without a trial, had obtained a judgment in a Justice of 
the Peace Court, and such case was appealed to the City Court of 
Kast St. Louis. The case was tried oy the Court, v/ithout the inter- 
vention of a jur:'-. 

"'~'' It is contended by the defendant that tne Covirt erred in 

enterin^^; an Order r^quirln;-; the defendajit to file with the Clerk, all 
papers and instruments in its possession and under its control, bear- 
ing on the issues in the case, such pacers and instri^ments to be 
impounded by the Clerk of the Court; that the Covirt also erred in 
granting the plaintiff's F,!otion tn exclude all the evidence and 
exhibits relative to Karp (who was not a witness, althou2;h reff^rred 
to as such in the Order of the Coi^rt ) ;Vfchat the Court likevvise erred 
in renderin-'i; jud'jmpnt in favor of plaintiff and against the defend- 

^ant, because the .iudginent of the Go'^rt was gainst the -iranlfest weight 


of tee evidence^ In viev; of wiiat Y/e l-Rve to say in this opinion, we 

deem it advisable to consider only the latter contention, of Defendant. 
The bill of lacing in which the Defendant Bank v/as inade both 
consignor and consignee, is merely a contract betv/een the shipper and 
carrier, and is not con-lr'sivn of any other transaction ( RUPf'^ v . 
KIKG-RICHARDSON CO ., 311 111. 513j CHI. R. I. &: P. H. CO. v. EIGHTH 
AMERICAN COLD ST RACE CO . . 244 111. App. 522j TTIlj: CA^'LO? F. ROSFS . IL/'r^ 
177 TT.s. 655", 9 A''^'-:^. JUKISPffliDEWCE , 674, Paragraph 414.) The *Svi- 
dence before the Court clearly established that the bill of lading 

was given merely as security for payment of the draft;, ..attache^^ 

As a matter of fact, the evidence in this case, insofar as 
the defendant. Bank of Mansfield, Missoiiri, is concerned, and its 
status in the transactions between Ellis and Danziger, or Danzlger'g 


;,o'n si;' or^ . : . , .allia 

.;;:., 'OB Jbrus ,65l9.*9H rlqIo£j. . .llJ^r^rrlnJ'! 

--■fiB 8T©qBq 

, iaead^iw b ion Bsm 6/!fv . 3:t-f?ffr*?c« 

- to loVelt ni iasDy : rri 

ew \ric ill Tjafi . ew :f'Bi1w '•. ■• i:vs ©-'cf lo 

;- j^.t^or r-? I'd- si 9ff* "^Irto leftMnop sdfa 

ad;t rfifil^w fiJt :-. -r^'T 

..:X-2fi-JtIM tSJ^S .XXI 1X5^" , .OP wrvt»rtq fri::nTP,f^iTTTf 

;S2c] .crqA ,XXl l>^ .» op g-^ A- 


cr'tanization, i.s positive, and teRtimony vidtli reference thereto is 
Virtually 'onimpe ached and uncontradicted. vVhlle ordinarily we would 
not interfere with the conclusion of the Court if there was any 
evidence to sustain the contentions of the Plaintiff, Wnore the 
evidence is direct, positive, and uncontradicted, it cannot be 
disregarded and rejected by the Court in the deter-nlnati on of the 

.ghts of the parties before it / KELLY v. JONES . 290 111. 37^^ 

The Record establishes, without ccntradlctlon, that the 
defendant. Bank of ^'ansfield, f.lissonri, received no payments or 
benefits whatsoever from Danzig'-^r; trat Danziger continued to rnalie 
payments to Ellis; and that the bill of lading was made in the name 
of the BanV:, as consignor and consignee, for security purposes only. 

We state as a finding of fact of this Court the fiecord signally fails"""'- 

[ to show any course of dealing between the Bank of Mansfield and Dan- 
ziger, or any "joint adventure" by the Bank, which could justify a 

\ recovery by Danziger, or his assignee. Under the circLtmstances, the 


I assignee would take the choses in action, subject to all defenses 

I against the assignor ( REESE v. SANITARY PI ST. OF CfilCAJO , 272 111. 


252 111. App. 82). 

I > P/e -(nust, therefore, conclude that the judg-ment of tae City 

5 Court of East St, Louis v?as erroneous. Such judgment Is, therefore, 

I reversed, and judginent is entered here in fa'"or of the defendant, 

I Bank of Mansfield, Missouri, and as against the plaintiff, Mrs. 

I He i eke. 

Reversed, and jud;gment entered here. 



■6w ei9. on 

: eon&blv.9 
Z<i beef; ofofijagaisjtfc 


• >y ,00 R .>TA ;SX5 ,qqA 

9ii^ if 

, ©T' 







Appellaaf, ) APPEAL FR0k 

JO^HKJtEWSKI, I ) / aOC^ COUNTY, . ,,- , 


Plaintiff brought an action against defendant to 
recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been 
sustained by his through defendant's negligence in driving his 
automobile which struck and injured plaintiff as he was crossing 
the street from a street car from which he had alighted, and 
before he had reached the ourba There was a Jury trial, a verdict 
and jud^ent in defendant's favor and plaintiff appeals. 

The record discloses that about 9:45 p, m, , October 19, 
1938, plaintiff who was then about 58 years old, boarded a street 
oar near his home in the southwest part of the city. The street 
car was traveling northeasterly on Archer avenue and when it 
reached Poplar avenue, an intersecting street which was near his 
place of employment, plaintiff alighted from the street car from 
the front door which the motorman had opened to permit passengers 
to alight, Ae he was walking towaard the southerly curb of Archer 
avenue he was struck and injured by the right front headlight 
of defendant • s automobile. 

Plaintiff's evidence is to the effect that he had 
reached a point i^ich was about 2 feet from the curb when he was 
struck, while defendant's position is that he was driving his 
o&r at from 15 to 20 miles an hour and about 200 to 300 feet 
behind the street car when he saw it come to a stop at Poplar 
avenue and plaintiff alight from the street car; that there was 
another automobile in tronX of defendant's and that the street 
car, after the pas-engere alighted, started up and the automobile 
ahead of defendant's continued without stopping, as did defendant; 


.Tfluoo aHT '?o woiHiio aHt oaficnvijsa HOfeVfoo'd aoiTsmt ,ffli 

ixftSKs av&ri o;f f^eoljal© nalii/tfii lAfloa'x?=iq lol as^ASA^ iftToosT: 
Sflieaois BBW 9if a^ lli^RiflXq 6«*ifft,«J5 f>n« iLojtrzfa iiolxiw sXicfoaod'Ms 

.BXseqq* fil^aljalq f>fl« tOTBt a^^flabnalafi al ^iiMBsJbirt i^n* 
,CI nscfc*sO ,,« ,q 9*je tirocfA JaiI* a»aoIe«l.b Mooert ariT 
*99«iifa a i>«^isod ^blo Oitnex 83 ;ruo(fA neit^ 8«w oiiw lllJalAiq ,8Cei 
*99Mjra axtT ♦tifio ad;? ^o Ji.sq ^eewritfuoa ari* ill waorf aiif laen iao 

axrl •s.asfl aaw doldw J^s«x*a sn2*o«8nst«i n» ^avadTA «XAlqoM: &ed»«9«t 

«oi^ lao JesiiJa oiii'' acit BstfrlsiXj?. 11ti;rjxlJiXq ,?rn©aioX<;pB» lo eo^Xq 

anesfldeaAq ^'ijsrxaq od' b^asqe bad OMBitottm sdi dolsbi looA Ja<yi1 afl* 

lorfoaA ^o cfiiro xX'ieiiJwo^ »ii;f feiiswo? anliXsw ajsv e£{ aA ^JxlgiXa o* 

.aXicfoffiotf^tos a'JfiaJ&nslofi lo 

X>BR[ eri *&xf? 3-OQ'S^e e£C;r o;r si sonefilve a'^tlJfJlAXl 

asw 9il nsi£w cfiuo ©rf^ ifforrl ;f'9»l 9 iuofi» aaw xfoirfw ^Tflioq £ bedoa9^ 

aid :^tvlib 93W 9d Jsji* si noXJiooq a'lTnAbnela^ sXlrfw ^ioin^a 

J 961 005 0* OOS ^iiocfB btt» tuGd n& aaXXa OS o:f 5X «<«1 *« iao 

•xfiXqo^ *s qo^B a o^ saoo Jl waa »xf nsrfw iao Jssrrta ©xfj^ bntded 

Bam 9'i9dt ?AX» J'SAO ^sd'x^e 9ri* ao'xl: ^ri^lXis mjflXsXq ba» aimeTA 

tttat^B ?»fiJ JBdit .&«» a • *n«i>n»'ia& to ^hot;! ni slMomotuA ladtons, 

BlldomotOA edt baa qw fiotfiajfa ,*»tftf3iXs aiosn9'^«*q 9d^ leJls ,«xao 


thftt plaintiff had stepped up on the ourh which was about '5 or 
6 Inches high, fallen backwards and struck the right front 
headlight of the automobile. 

The motorman and plaintiff gave testiaony to the effect 
• that plaintiff was struck before he had reached the curb - about 
2 feet from it, Clarence Rhinehart, a police officer who was 
driTing an automobile in the line of his duty northeasterly in 
Archer avenue, and some distance behind defendant's automobile, 
also gave testimony which to some extent corroborated the testi- 
aony of plaintiff and the motorman. s,. 

The answer filed by defendant to the complaint denied 
any negligence and alleged that "plaintiff alighted from the 
street car in the middle of the block rather than at the inter- 
section; " that "plaintiff Jumped off the street car while it was 
in motion and into the path of the defendant's automobile." 

Plaintiff contends defendant's proof did not correspond 
with the allegations of his answer filed to the complaint - a 
variance between the allegations of defendant's answer and hie 
testimony. If there was any merit in this point it is not saved 
because there was no suggestion made on the trial that there was 
any such variance. 

Plaintiff further contends the verdict is against the 
manifest weight of t&e evidence. We think this contention must 
be sustained. We do not discuss the evidence further for the 
reason that we think what we have heretofore said is sufficient, 
y This court has the power and the duty to set aside a verdict and 
Judgment where the court is of opinion the verdict is against 
the manifest weight of the evidence. -This has long been the 
established law in this state. One of the most z*ecent cases 
passing on this point where the subject is thoroughly gone into 
is Corcoran v. City of Chicag o, 373 111, 567, where the Judgment 
of this court, 296 111, App, 645, (abst, ), was affii^ed. 

•S8 S tao&A BBV dotti^ fSiue 9di no qu b9qq,9tB kMsL fllinlRlq tMttt 

at ^Ii«^3a©ii?'i0« Tc:ruf> aid 1© 9nll srii' fll aXldoscrf^WB oa ^Ivtib 

9ii* m<nt b^id:^L& tltial&lq* *axC^ ^©aeXIa tttiB 9oa&i^ll-B9n xa& 

Si - ^"«i.sIq»©o QjdS o;t Ijelll i0i»Bii» Bid to »noli»:isIls Bd£ dJlw 
aid ba& lewsas s«*flA^B©'ia5 lo aisoJ;^«89lXa »ri* ii»©w*9<i sonaliAV 

SAW •isfid' *3rid^ laiiS' siliT no sbtm aoiJa^ssua on e«w *T:arf* »a»«oscf 

^il^ iB.jaX&-^& 8l a'aiij'xev srfJ aAfls-tnoo t&diiisTi yiitatALI 

,;tflsi9J:t olod's'iaxl @VMd »w ^jsriw 2to2d;J aw i^d^ noBA9^ 

has, Joif>i9V ^ sMsA itas o.t igitufe »ri;t btiB tewoq gxisT •*!£ i'ljjoo sixfT 

*aniAS« 8-t *alJ&" .ioiolqo to si tiifoo »ri* OTiMhr ;r£(9«;^ut 

»di nssrf sool a«ii slfR; »80fle.5lv8 »ffit lo ^ria^sw #a9l:lfl&m 9dt 

• eej&o ^n«»3'x cTesoai ©xi* lo «»aO ♦site^a aliif ni wsX f>srialX<faJ«« 

.feoeraxria aav .(.Secfjs) ,^^^ .'-'t-' .X'I Bes ^^'iwoa aXdJ to 


Since there must be a new trial we think we ought to 
say there was no prejudicial error In what the court did In 
examining plaintiff as to his ahlllty to speak the English 
language (now probably the American language Carl In v. Millers 
Motor Corp . 265 111, App, 353) or in questioning some of the 
Jurors as to their ability to understand the Polish language, 
(Questions on the latter subject should not have been asked but 
we think plaintiff was not prejudicially affected. We are further 
of opinion there was no err-or in admitting defendant's exhibit 
1 which was the receipt given to defendant by the hospital for 
money he had paid. 

For the reason that we are of opinion the verdict ie 
against the manifest weight of the evidence, the Judgment of the 
Superior court of Cook County iis reversed and the cause remanded 
for another trial, 


McSurely, P, J,, and Matchett, J,, concur. 

o^ iiigijQ 9VI jintsi^ 9v lAl'it wen & acf t»uBi ertsri? Bonl^ 

til bib J'ixjoo Sxi3" ^^«J{fltf al tenia iis.lotbul%nq oa taw •rrsrld' x*a 
xiaiXaflS «rf:? iasqe o^ ^Jillcfa aid oi &a lllJfiJtBlq salain«x9 

f»ri* to ©«es ^i0ol3ri?»»tfp njt 10 (5S5 .qqA .1X1 5SS « gioO 10^ oX 

iud b^in.*: t*^'^ fi^»d ton bluods Si>Ql<ist2 'tBtS&I sAt ne anoiJas/Ji) 

^loliixB B*taAbaBl9l> ^BltilmSi& «/. en »«w e'Xftd* noiixXqo ^0 

•sol i&ilqh&ii srl^ "id d-fi££in«t»^ o? nevis ^qls^e'^t »£i^ aav iloJtxlw X 

Jilnq bad 9x£ xsaofl 
al totinnr Bd$ aelulqo to 9%& &n t&di noa«©Tt ari* 10I 

jbafensfflsi S8W«0 sri? bast BoeisTei el x^^nwoO iooO lo J'xwoo tolisqua 

,XaXij isxWoiia lot 



CorporatloEj/ ^^-^v^ / ) 



yn r\ 

f APPEAL FROM / / ^f / 

OF CH|/6a00, 


January 5, 1939, plaintiff brought an action against 
defendant to recover #128,64 which it claimed was due it from 
defendant by reason of the fact it had paid William Sheriff, one 
of its policy holders, that amount on account of property damage 
to his automobile occaeioned by the negligence of defendant - that 
plaintiff had been subrogated to the rights of Sheriff, Defendant 
denied liability on the ground that Sheriff had brought a suit 
against it to recover for personal injuries and property damage 
of #178,64 which resulted from a collision between Sheriff's 
automobile and one of defendant's cabs, and that defendant had 
settled the matter in full. There was a trial before the oourt 
without a jury and a finding and judgment in plaintiff's favor 
for |123#64, (The |5 difference between the amount of the claim 
and the amount of the judgment is nowhere explained, ) 

The record discloses that October 13, 1936, William 
Sheriff's automobile and a cab belonging to defendant company 
collided, as a result of which Sheriff claimed he had received 
personal Injuries and the automobile had been damaged. Some time 
prior to the accident plaintiff. The Home Insurance Company, 
issued its policy covering damage to Sheriff's automobile which 
is referred to as a :50 deductible policy. The day after the 
accident an attorney for Sheriff notified the cab conqpany he had 
been retained to represent Sheriff and claimed an attorney's lien, 
October 24 the insurance con^jany settled with Sheriff by paying 

ihdi - a-n^flsieo 1© aeafy^llgsn 9M xd AshoIqrooo elirfoBoJtra aid ot 

Slu-^ 8 ^'itai/O'i'^" *" "^^ '^"^fTOiiS tf«ul* fjcuoTS ©If* no x^^^ifi^J^^ bBltiBb 

sgsmsfi i{*^9qoivi u.- T^ix[slat Xanossi^q 10I isvoosi o* tl *aaJt£:g£ 

a'm'xenS nsawJ'ed nol8fll©o a «©^t Aatli/fen xJoldw *O,0?I? to 

bati ^natxiBleb iBSiii baa .adijo a' JfCAf)n©tafe to 9«o jdjeir ^Itdomotuz 

iiuoo Bcii &'xot©<f Ifili;^ » ssw ©leriT .Ilj^t ni net 3 am ftrfJ fcaXJJse 

ntcvBt ?*tti3-ci.©Xq ni 3^Wf>jB?jf)t;t i>xxA aniAflit ^ Bc« x^ut * ^uodJlw 

Elalo sdi to insjcaB 9£ii nesvJad ©onoieltlB 9^ exlT) »^«5£X# lot 

( Jt&miHiqxs 9i9xiwon 3i ^nsffigibut ©d* to *iMroffu» axf* l>fiii 

xnaqmco tjtafiHstafi 0* ^IsfioJ^^^ cfBo b -5/18 »Xl€foiPoJi;>i -i'ttXiariE 

Jb9vi9©3'£ £)sd ftri oeoJiiiXo ttii5»xiC dolriw to drXwatii s 5b ,jb©^iXIOJ> 

'WiJ ©iBoS ,j&9-gsaisi> n^©cf J&BXf 9X±cfomo*tif<5 eiJJ bnA a?>itvlnt Xsnoaisq 

,Xn-3qffioO aoixjBiwafll e«ioH BriT ^filtRXjeXq *n9£tXoo« 9x1* o3^ toliq 

ifoXiiw ©Xi<foiBO*Mja a'ttin^^ilR o* si^jmsJb gitiiirvoo i;oiIoq 3*1 bsuQBl 

^rf* lijd-t'^ ijtjfi ©rlT ,ijolJoq 9Xdl*ouI>9i oe « 8« o* Atnetsi al 

i»j3/x art x^ac^oo dso sri* feeltltfon ttlierffi lot y^^'ioJ^** ns *n«Bloofl 

»fl9lX ». '^«niotf*A HA f>©KljsIo iJar. ttlisrfE *ri93c-'T:q«i o* l>9Kli;*9i nsstf 

r • ■ "^ ,^S •xsdoJoO 


him 1128, 64, the amount of property damage, |178,64 lees $50 
deductible under the policy, January .81, 1937, Sheriff by the 
same attorney, brought an action in the Circuit Court of Cook 
County against the Yellow Cab Company and the driver of the 
taxi to recover the #178,64, and for personal injuries the ad 
damnum w&a #20,000, March 6, 1937, the suit was settled by the 
oab company paying Sheriff 1|900, It took from him a written 
document by which he released and discharged the Yellow Cab 
Company from "all claims and causes of action *** and particularly 
of and from all claims and causes of action for or by reason of 
all injuries and damages of whatsoever nature now known to me 
or ^Ich may hereafter develop by reason of an aociaent happening 
on the 13th day of October, 1936 at Clybourn and Fullerton Aves, " 
Kie release was delivered to the cab co^any and on that date, 
March 17, 1937, it issued its check for ij?900, payable to Sheriff 
and to his attorney, on which check was written "In full settlement 
of all claims against the Yellow Cab Co» a Corp. " and particularly 
mentioning the accident of October 13, 1936, The check was 
endorsed by Sheriff and by his counsel. Over the endorsement 
appeared the following: "The receipt and acceptance of this check 
is acknowledged in full and final settlement of the claim or 
account stated hereon* " 

The complaint filed in the Circuit Court by Sheriff 
against the cab coa5)any and its taxi driver above referred to, 
set up the collision that occurred October 13, 1936, the claimed 
personal injuries, and the damage to the automobile, one paragraph 
of the complaint being: ••7, That by reason of the foregoing the 
aforesaid automobile of the plaintiff, yvilliam Sheriff, was 
greatly damaged and broken to the extent of One Hundred Seventy 
Eight Dollars and Sixty Four Cents (|178,64),» 

fhe Circuit court action involving all of Sheriff ^s 


0S& aasi *S,8?i4 ,»8a«AJb -i^ftdqcwtq to rttiuom^ 9Xi#,*^,8SI| fflld 

©fia" ^o •J9Vl:'i& oflcT bos ^tflacrooO iS&O woIXaX 9il3" Jaflisga ^i'flKoO 

ed^ -^cT &»l^iB9 QBV ^Jtu? »j15 ,T?;6X ,5 itoiAM »CXX)»02«- saw mtfflCflA 
aQi-HTiJ B mid aoi^ loo^f *I ,006*^ lliisjdBE sclx^aq XOJa<I««s tf«o 

llt&lisott'i^q -&fl« **'-'' noiitote to 3«a««o £►«« a«i*I« iX«*' (ho-^I ^puiqiBoO 

lo inoe^S'i ^^<^ -10 lot noid^oi"^ to 99otfiu» b»A nmlSMle 11a ao^t boM to 

9fi( oct irwoji;^ woa s'iui&a tsvec&tAJiM t& se^MMb l>fui ttzimulnt XXa 

"^isvA. 0o3--xaXXK'i btm ais/otf^XO jfs d56X «'x«cfod'oO lo \a6 ili"iT.X 9riJ no 

t^i&b :i.i!iS no hn^ xoBqaoo d^® »sLi oi Jb9*i.9rll9b saw •a^sX&'x 9i£S 

IttiQi^ 0* sXd^j&^Aq ,0064 lot j[o9£[o ati X>9ws9i: ?X ,V£ex ^VX xio-JUsM 

ssaisXJJ'sa XXtft /il" ao^fs^Xivr ajsw Jfo#iio doiLriw no ,t9«io4"?a rXjcI o? Axib 

^Xi^XJ9SiX^'3:aq. Srx^ '^ *cn:oO a .oO ef^O W0XX9I &sii ^salxgA shjUXo XXjb to 

e&w ji9sxio @d!X *&&QX ,6X lexfocfoO to ^fln^'ioMi <ui^ anlixoi^fiea 

^aaiHssTOi^ae axi? 'X970 ,l<saaiJoo aXxl x^ &aa ttineiiS iff ^sa'xo&iia 

jio^rfo sir© to 90««;fq«v003 t!>-5jB *qX90^i sflf" tsniwoIXet ©^U J&B^B»qq« 

" .nosnari bstAin ^nwoooA 

»©;? i>aTS©l9i 3¥odj8 ipviil> txui Ail htiJb itiBqmoo tfRo aricf iaatsi^e. 
b»at&lo edt ,dSGX ,r.X •j:eao;;roO bB^ituo^o Jarf* aolsXiXoo ©d? qu t-ea 

-^fl^ SflXosa'sot Qd:f to noane^ xtf »iWffT S^ i ^atBiS ^al&lqmozt etit to 

a«w ,ttiiejiia (BjsiXXXv. /ItX^niiXq ori;^ '10 oXiQOBio;rws j&iAee'Xola 

-v^iazv^Q iymibnvU acu to tn^Sxt auf c>^ caXarteT l>isi» £a^AiM£ yJ^«»<i;i 

'• .(^»48VX^.) Qta&Q 'U'O^ xixl& boA an&lloU ;rf(sia 

a •l'iX'i)->a«. io llii. ;gnlvXovfil flol*o« ^-swoo JXuoiXO ">r{T 

olaliBs against the taxi company having been settled In March, 
1937, nothing further appears until a year and a half afterward, 
viz., August 11, 1938, when an attorney representing plaintiff 
insurance coB^any wrote a letter to the cah company in which it 
stated it had been subrogated to the rights of William Sheriff 
growing out of the accident of October 13, 1936; that plaintiff 
had been advised the action had been settled and that counsel 
for the insurance company was informed the Yellow Cab Company 
would take care of the interest of the insurance company, 
Plaintiff's claim not having been paid, the instant case was 

defendant contends it settled all claims arising 
out of the accident when it paid the |900 to Sheriff and took 

,/ his release. And the argument is that since plaintiff says at 
that time the attorney who represented Sheriff also represented 
the Insurance company, notice to him was notice to the plaintiff 
insurance company; that defendant had ao notice or knowledge of 
the claimed interest of the insurance company and therefore the 

'^ release is a bar. We thiiUc the contention must be sustained 

on the ground that the finding of the trial court is against the 
manifest v/eight of the evidence. 

Sheriff, called by plaintiff, testified that shortly 
after the accident he was visited by a representative of the cab 
company at the hospital and a number of times thereafter; that 
he had employed an attorney to handle the case; that afterward 
he and hie wife called at the cab company's office and settlement 
waa discussed; that they offered to pay for the time he had lost 
from work, plus about |100 for injuries; that he was to be paid 
the doctor and hospital bills and the damage to his automobile; 
that several months after his suit was brought, he settled the 
matter by executing the release, as above stated. His attorney 
was called by plaintiff and testified that about a month after 

,f»iJ8>in £»#!:» liBri jg J^>0J8 t:asx « IJtiJ'wi/ at«s<?q« "xarftfiyl gcjtiS^oa ,Veei 
^tiJtfilfllq Bfi^'J'K^s sr^q«i t-'fl^ioJ*"** n^ B«*iw ,8561 «XI ^atf^wA , .sir 

».«v- 99&0 tn&ltsial »rf<f ^S,ls&q «©««r i|#ilrj!irl Jon ai^Xo fi^ttlialAL^ 

to ^-g^^Xvettl to ^t)Jt^oa oa hAti ieuthaBl&h ia^ x-xjaAqjeeo 99B»itt9tit 

arid' iSinlB-g^ si ttsj&o Xsii* ©il^ to s^J^-^J^jfi wrt* #»il# 6a»0TS *^^ «o 
1i4J'>.0ii»s vi i;i-!J Jl;-^i;.x.i«'?(C^ »tli*nlJSX<3f ^tf £>«XIa© »t:ti*teifS 

JbttAwcssrtA i&tl$ ;[d3.s& ed^ dlJ&iiBfC e<f x^aio^tA tiM Se^cXqfts X»ajci sff 

tftsasX^^ss ba« «t>itto e't^Bqisoo efAd 9d1t i» £eXXA8 dtlv aiiiC boA otf 

9aoX M4 «»d matt ?>A^ icfl ^^q 03 f>d^!>tt6 i^oil^ ^&d^ $£&a!4»08iJ& sav 

hlaq ^ o* «Aw «i! *«i£* ;s«Xi«t«X "xot OOX^ ^ffetfja salq «ahow «©nt 

;»Iltfo«»cJ«A aiif o* ©ssAJsJb nAi baA bIXM lAtlqaod baa lo^oo* «dir 

Acf^ b^liS^ &d t^ff^ife^tf •£(« tlsri »Xe{ ite;^tA «ri^noii Xaisivsa #i^^ 

X9aio9isi Bill ,b9t3tn svocTd a£ iABavX^i %f£# snl9co®:sa t<^ 'xtt#«t'iia 

•seittA dfaom .^ ^;jodj» ;I^Aift hf»£fltn9^ baA JlttRlAlq -^jd bellso bav 

the accident he discussed with Mr, Gard, representing defendant, 
the question of settlement; that he told Mr, G-ard he represented 
Sheriff in his claim for injuries and also represented the 
insurance company which at that time had paid Sheriff hie 
property damage under the policy. That afterward they agreed to 
accept 1900 with the understanding that the cah company would 
pay the insurance company about |120, 

On the other hand, Gard testified he had been employed 
by the cab company about 20 years; that be had talked with Sheriff 
and his wife about January 85, 1937, when there was a suggestion 
that the case be settled for |350 - afterward the amount was 
increased to |500; that aftervrard Mr. Sheriff's employers had 
called and asked that the Blatter be disposed of; that no mention 
wag made of the insurance company's claim of subrogation or 
otherwise; that when the attorney was settling the case in the 
Circuit court suit nothing was said about the rights of the 
insurance company; that if he had discussed the question of 
subrogation with counsel there would have been a different sort 
of release prepared and the printed form would not have been 
used; that in such oases they never settled matters piecemeal. 
Upon a careful consideration of all the evidence in 
the record, and taking into consideration the fact that the trial 
Judge saw and heard the witnesses, we are of opinion that when 
all the evidence is considered, much of which was written, the 
finding in favor of plaintiff is against the manifest weight of 
t/ the evidence. When Sheriff's case was settled and the #900 paid 
to him, the complaint specifically claimed |178,64 the amount 
of the damages to his automobile. There can be no doubt that the 
parties understood they were settling all claims involved in that 


Since the casfe was tried before the court without 
</ a Jury the Judgment will be reversed without remanding. Ebbert 

9d^ b9ia9B9iq^e*t oaJja JE>n« 89jtiii(,fll lot al&Io tld al ttli9dS 

nld tlitedQ blsq b&d Bsalt iBdt i& doldv xneqinod dOJiAiusni 

oi b&9tg& x®^^ btAvn9i^& *adT ,^olioq ^dt t&bnu 9T^msb "^tf^ieqcnq 

^XiTOw ^aqffioo cfAO eif;t ;fBjd^ ^g^lbaniaiBbnu tfd^ ditv 00$| }^q«oo« 

.OSI| iiiodjs ^flBqaoo dDiis'Xifani^ 9£l;f X^q 
J&9XoIqa9 ns^dcf 5sil 9£l b^niinsi Mdfi «J&aiJUf ieii;ro sifl^ nO 

iiol;fa@%Sijs & B«w 979£(^ n«xfw ,VSeX «3S -^'xasius'^ tuedM 9liw aM £cui 
saw 3^fliJOH,s 9£{;f M«wrc9Jfl« - OeS|: lol fioXJ*** stf ssas »iW^ ;^Bril 

noi^Bf^m cm tt!>dS ;to Jb98oqBiJ& scT nsitc^AS 9x1^ indt b9t»& btiB btllMo 

ic aoliMi'Q€n(Sim to mt&lo s'^nj&qmos soiusiiisfll •x£^ to eJb£ir asw 

©riJ Rl 98«o 9ri^ SfliX^Jes 8.SW inatotiB eriJ nerfw ^Jiri* ;»ai>rx©xl*o 

9Ai lo atrfaii 3^* Jt-o«fs JE>X*« msv 'gtildfoa itun Jiwoo ttvsn.10 

to noi;*s»yp srfS^ X»5>qrwos1I) had eri ti J^aiU ;xfleqHoo fioa&tuani 

Jioa tneietllB a need 9r»d blaov Qt^At Xaancoo dtlv aoHtASOicrua 

aa«Kf evsxl i'oxi f>X«ov ereot AsJnliq 6iltf ifla ^etsqaiq eaasXsi to 

.XjS9«»09iq si©**am x>9X?3^»a i^vec is^^rf* »©8j80 rioue nl &&di \b9tu 

nl 98«?»£iV9 3ri;f XIb to noUBiebianoo Xutsijao a ftoqU 

XAlrt? 9rfi' ^jsjtfi- ^©«t sdt aolSBiBbi&noo oietX gtttt&t bnz ^b'xoo^i srDf 

BBdv tzd^ aotniqo to sifi «w .adaasA^iv srW b*iA9d f>fl* wsa 9SJE>«t 

©rf* ,fl9J?liw asw doiriw to rioifia ,*»«ie61enoo al eon®filv© sritf XX« 

to ^rf^Xaw ;ts9tiflAiB sri;? ;?»nX«8A ai tti^raljaXa to lovAt ai gnlfciiit 

blBq ooei ©ri* fina £>9X;tJsa saw e«eo a'ttXisfffi flsilW .•ottafiXve sitf 

;Jni;offlj3 eii* i^e.evxl bsnislo t-fIJS«>-^^-*«>»<l« itnlaXqaoo sil^ i«lil o^ 

9di i&d3 tduob o« acf aao ©laxfT ,9Xltfo«o*«a Rid o* as^Mmab Bdt to 

tfAxW nl Jb«TXovf!l bhImX© XX« jfllXt^ss ©tsv x»rf* J&ooJaisfiiitf asl^OAq 

^uoriiJlw J-xwoo »ri;t stotscf JbsliJ baw 9«bo arid- aoiilJ!^ 


▼. Met« Life Ins. Oo . . 369 111, 306; Kahler v. Marohl . 507 111, 
App. 23, The Judgment of the Munloipal court of Chicago is 

McSurely, P. J,, and Matchett, J,, concur. 

' G»Q©ral niimber 9258. 

s f 


* -/ 

\ / 


nvii^er ilT 

ISJ "i is A?f 2ELATS GOUTiT 
OCTOBIE TWM, A^. B. 1941. 

?BOPI£ ex i-el, JOHil 

of tiie City, 61 Jtauuton, 
Macoupin Og/tint7, lllixioiB, 


' ''"ud. ,n o Pre? s i d i a *: » 

HAYES,'?. J. 

Prior to January 2» 194C, i..ust(a:rd ^axiididge was 
ezaployea by the City of Staunton, Illinois, es line i;ian 
and cMef ©lectriclan. On Dec©aber 15, 1939, the oity 
oouncil of the city of Staunton passed an. ordinance over 
the Mayor's veto, v/bicli ordinance provided that all regular 
employees, es distiiigtiisli©<ll froa city officers or casual 
employees, should 'De hired by tke city council and tiiat 
persons holding such positions at the time the ordinano© 
was passed, siioulc. hold ttieir poaitioas during the 
pleasure of tiie city oouncil until tnat body shouM 
replace then v?'ith new osiployees. A provision Mas 
for applications to ue sifide to the city council, in writing, 
by persons desiring employment. On January 2, 1940, Joiin 
Faulstlch, relator iie.rein, filed his application for the 
position then held by 3andidt;e, and on the same date his 
application was accepted by the city council.. 

.— .ri^brt--- 


'^S<? ledmiti la-x&DS 



-! ?>»ia«.ti > llonuoo 


, .-iolJaXiffllL 


Ou Janiiary 6, 1940, Faulstich presented hiaself 
for work, but he was refused employment on the order of tiie 
l^yor. On January 11, 1940, the People on the relation of 
Faulstich filed a petition for vrrit of siandamus in the 
C/lrcuit Court of Macoupin. County agaiat't the ilayor, williaia 
B, MoBrien, praylag that th© writ ahould issue to coiapel 
him to reaove SariMdge aiid to perait i'auLsticii to .porfona 
the duties as line man artd chief electrician for the city 
of Staunton. The defendant filed a motion to strike the 
petition, which wme oYorrulefi hy the trial court. The 
defendant then filed an answer to the complaint which was 
stricicea on raotioa of the relator, and tho default of the 
defendexit vifas entered. The Court entered a final juclgaent 
ordering the ousster of Sandidg© and coapelliag the defendant 
to permit the relator to perform the duties of line man 
and chief electrician for the city. An appeal has bejea 
brought to this Court from that Judgaieat. 

Appellee herein cites numerous eases, holding 

tliat under the statutes of tJiis 3tat© the .power to appoint 

officers of a city is vested ia the laayor of a city, subject 

to the approval of the city council, and therefore arj^ues 

that th© ordinance passed by the '^ity Council of the City 

of Staunton is invalid, because it conflicts witla the 

procedure outlined in the statute and those decisions. 

Bullis V. City of Ghicaro, 235 111. 472; !loon v. Mayor, 

214 111. 40; People v. McCann, 247 I11.A43. This ;ir,sumcat 

overlooks the distinction between city officers and employees, 

a distinction which the ordinfmce expressly recognizes. 

Appellant on the other imnd cites cases holding 
that a city council has power to contract for eertain types 
of services wnich are incidental to the perfonaance of 

%01o ed^ 1 cTioBlB 'is.. 

. JiOiliSiJr: 

aatKf aJ8^ ii&9»'.io:s itA ,\il^ ^di "Wfrl uslolt-toaXa Islxlo baa 




jdirJala aJJ" laijfli: ci^^'xlj 


: • 3 

2i, ni 

jaunicipal functions, but these cases are likewise not in 
point. In none of tiiera does it appear tkat an iseue v/as 
raised conceraini^;- the laethod of appoiiitaesit. 

'fe have carefully searched the st-.tutes of this 
state and the decisions of the ootacts of review constraing 
thea, and have foand no authority directly in point, 'while 
oxpress provision is lasde for the appoiataent of muaiclpal 
officers (111. Rev. Stats. 1939, Gh. 24, P. 86) no provision 
is :!3ade for the employment of regular ©.nployees of a city. 
Section 65 of tlie Gitle® end Tillages Act, however, does 
grant power to the city council "to control fixiauoGS and 
property" of the city. 111. Hev. Jtats. Ch. 24, Section 65, ^/.o^T 
It would seea froa this provision, therefore, that the 
neoessary power of appointing esaployees to carry out the 
duties iiaposed therein should be implied and would vest in 
■the council itself unless delegated to the laayor by ordinance 
pursuant to the provisions of Section 24 of the secae statute, 
Illinois Hevieed Statutes 1939, Chapter 24, riection 24. 
This result is supported by the general pil© that the power 
of appointment Is regarded as on© of the prerogatives of 
sovereignty. People ex rel ilallas v. Krupicka, 279 111. 
App. 269, and "whenever a pov&v is conferred upon a 
nunicipal corporation by the Legislature, aM no officer 
or person ia espressly authorized to exercise such power, 
the coritaon oouxicil of the nunioipality is the only authority '^'^'~ 
*ieh can exercise it," Me riuillia on Mmiiclpal Corporations 
(Second i.d») Voluxa© 2, page 158. 

The jud^ent of the Circuit Court of Macoupin 
County is therefore affirmed. 


•4£ ae-ii ii»,i<lJ3jiO ,§6:?I ««^Bf^*J<i M«Jiy»Ji alocllll 


General iliisilsQr 9272. 

Agesida iiuaber B, 


-'^y'^CTOmm TTHM, A*^^'l9U. 

Go-Partner a/ doltif, busijiess 


BOH POlftTl, et &!., 

Defend ant-A_.>p ellaa t s . 




- Judr^e Pre^lGla.^ 

imtES, P. J. 

Tills is an appeal froa a judgaont of the Circuit 
Court of 3aji^$moa Couatj' by G-lenn Hogero, George /leanol, aad 
Doa Powell, deferKiaats-appellaata, fin-fiirig thcKs guilty of 
©ont^ptpt of court for violating the teras of an. injunetloa, 
in vuliich th® punisiaiaent I'or each vms fixed at conf laeiaeat 
in the TandaXia State ?ana, for a period of six ;;iDnth3, 

I'he tibre© aefead&iits, prior to i'aj 3, 19A0, had 
been employees of th& Stera Ftimlture Costpeny, whicu consisted 
of iiarry li. ^tera sad Saa 3t«rix, partners, Tiie said three 
defeiidaats were mer:nbers of the Chaurfeurs, Teaiasturo, :ielperc 
tJaion #532 of Spy lag fie Id, Illinois. On my 13, 1940, a strike 
on said f inn was called by said Unlori. and its .-.-ieubers. On 
the l^tJi day of ;.:ay, 1940, this suit was filed, &xui an injunc- 
tion obtained agaiast said Uaios and of its inenbers. 



.';;.-.r.:if;?{fo ROti 


including the thro© defendants. Cn J'.mB 20, 1940, the 
plaintiffs filed tii©ir v^^rif led i>etiticii for u rule directed 

agaiuat the defeatlanta and otliers, to show cans© wiiy they 
ehotild not be held, in oontempt of coxxrt foi* aii attfielc coa- 
jaitted ay uliem on tia© person of Floyc Clayton, an cirsploye© 
of the -Sterns Furnlturcj Gegapeny, 

Tli© STldi&ae© diselosQS tMt stiortly after the strike, 
trucks laaking-; deliveries for the fiiralture coapanj te-ore followed 
hj foxmsr tgaplojees awi tli©ir sjmpatMsers in autosj^biies, 
raaglag in nuaber froEi six to ©iriiteea. Wheii tixe trucks wo-.-.M 
stop to smkB deliveries of the fui'iiiture, ihe. eaplojees iwuld 
obBtruct the deliveries aM tlar^aten aM ooerc© the custossers 
of the ccmpaay so that they ivould refuse to accept the cieliverles. 
The three viefeadaats weat to the hor.m of Floyd Clayton, who 
roaained aa ©aplo/e© in the i'-t^rn Furniture Coiap&ay, to induoe 
i5i-,3 tiy go on strike with tliem an'vi join tbe picket line. He 
refused to do so and vma told by them tiirtt 'hb would be sorry. 
Siiortly tfeero&fter, at three o'clock one aorning, while Clayton 
and his fa^iily v;&t& fesleep, a sliot v/as fired into the roar.i in 
^ich hto slept. On .Tuns 19, the three defendants assaulted 
tiie said Olayton, gave iiiii a ss¥®r@ beating » ^^-<-^ left him 
uaconssious* He was taken by tlie police to tlxe iiospital where 
hia ^^foimds were sewed up and it >;a.3 found that lie suffered a 
eoncussion of the bra5.n. 

It apfvears froa the record tliat prior to this l&lx>r 
trouble, the three d eferidaa ts and Clayton were frieadly towards 
each otiier, and all were apparently good citizeiis, 

Coiaplaint is laad© tiiat tn© punisliirieiit is excessive, 
Appellsnta contead that it should b€i treated as an ordinary 
assault aac battery case. The violeaoe dare vfas excessive as 

hlM m4 Sua i^JUiCMla 

ill r™iO:i . ^as^-iiv^ ji'KIV.-^XlieJ" *' ' '■- 

. sn*8 1: V 



well as unlawlUl* 

Our S\ipr©me C<MTt Ms laid down tiitis rule, blMiag on 
til© Gova^t, tliats ^Tim law is w©!! settled ttmi a court of 
Chaaoery say impose a fin© a lose for Ui& violation oX" an injunction 
and oorjait th© party vmtil the fin© and costs ai«© paid, or, in 
_it@ diso retloa, iiay fix a fi^fiaite period of ImpriBoim&nt, eithar 
witli or ■»?ltliOMt 6i fiae, Tho oo^irt ^i^i^asutlng the iajuaction is 
aeeessarllj isTested witii lar-'e ai&creticm ia enforeiag obfediea©© 
to its aaMate, &n& upon proceedlags for attacii^wat for its 
Yiolstion th® extent of th© fia® aaa iaprisomssrit to be iafiict@d 
as a ptmislMeat for the eoateapt r«sta ia tb© souxid legal 
dlaoretion of tiie court itself. Hake v. Tlie People, 230 111, 174. 

'flm puniBhiMUt Ijaposed ia a ooiite^ipt proceeairjt; is 
not jieoessarllj tested by the peiBlties provided for criaiaal 
offeaaes or a slsiilar aat\ir@, Vmm v. The People, ibid. 

It isay be that tiie Jistabars of tliis Unloa ^^mre well 
justified ia the «i©iaaad;s they w&t@ aaKiag for a nlgiier wag©. 
In ■vim? of tile «€v©nolrig cost of livL-ag, Tlae tread of public 
poliey in this country* 1& to give the v.'as€ earner a ^age Uiat 
will ;>®3:Talt iiis and iiis faiiil/ to 11 v© on a higher standard 
thaa In tiiii psast. Our soverasasnt has imfie considerable prosprese 
to briag this about ia a iQiyful, peaceful Vsfay , but the aofeadaats 
1^10 teke thi&- law Ie tMeir owa liaiids and ooimit ^anlawful acts of 
Yioleno© tttirt a Isadable ©a'u®® ratiier thmx help it, «ufi aaist to© 
held resaonsFbi© tor tii®ir linlam^ul aets of violence. 

lie ar® of the oplaioa that tlie. ©vliieace clearly 
preponderates in fevor of Van fiiKliaf; of the court below, 'but 
lii View of (iefeniaatis having been law~abiding,worl£ine; ^asn u? 
t© the tia© of the oaae,_,iE^^jUiestlCfeE, aufi tl^ ciroujastance that 
thejy w«r® wnaer k strain at that time, we feel tJtet an iaprlscmaient 

v.. ,:>l.\yt t,^ n- 

•,;.:.: ■ ^':.''' ; . ...It 

_ • '.a;oc 4;.'' ■ 

£-•= i^'i ^.-'w »vh-* ;^!.T*5 IXlW 

•■■ ■ l»->i>l. 








,woX»tf :q 

for_a_j^erloa of three laoiiths will a^ly viadicate the law, wheroaB 
an ij^rlsoamont of six moaths es fixed by the trial Court, wocild 

k©©p Um defeadantE awaj from thmtr i8oric,aaf,„fjpi,4i4.^s^^uM«^ 
Ta@ additional thr«® s»atlis would result in aoK* iiai^ than good. 
W© rial that the seateaee should be j^^diried ;30 aa to sake the 
t®3ra of impriaoaaeat three mmths rather than six aonths. 

For that reason ve reverse axid rer^xiia the c&hb to the 
Trial Coijirt with direetloris -to aodlfy tim Bmi%&xic<& fixi:is.^tu& 
impri soasaent for a period of three months. 

Rmtrnm aid ^lansiD mm DTBMCTxom, 

afietno^sttf tW«I ©dJ nS^tolbat^ \^^i9 Slim imUiiam »«^iU lo Jiol«i»<|^_B^50l 




Gen. No. 9288 

William K. Galeener, , '"■» 

PI ai nt 1 ff -Appellants ' 




Edward P. HeCsel an|: JBiH'na Alms, 
Administrators of the Estate of 
John Frederick Hessel, Deceased, 

Def endan t s-Appell e e s . 
Fulton J: 

October Term, A.D. 1941 

rcliit Court 

paign County. 

11I.A. 654^ 

Wllllaia K. Galeener, Appellant in this Court and 
Plaintiff below, brought this action in the Circuit Court 
of Champaign County to recover for services rendered John 
Frederick Hessel during his lifetime covering a period 
from July 1, 1931 to December 31, 1935. The Appellant was 
employed first by Hessel under a written contract begin- 
ning March 1, 1929, to the end of the calendar year at a 
salary of |125.00 per month. A further written contract 
provided for employment during the year 1930 at a salary 
of tl43.50 per month. After 1930 Appellant continued in 
the employment of Hessel without any new written contract 
until December, 1935. During the first six months of 
1931, he was paid |143.50 per month. From July 1, 1931 

. 'aXf€K}qA-B:fa*J!>n9iP" 
Arm ;frtifoO ntdf n.i Sn&IlPqqA ^lenselsC .? auj-tlXlW 

-fils^o' ^OBitnoo nsJJirtv? s Tsfenu IfiBe^H ?.d isitt b^xolqmd 
^o.s^i'noo af:>.:itt*"i i^riifitfl A .rf^nom t«'t OC.<<Slt lo t^^-^^B 

^X i9«A .il^no* ^»q OS.CMf lo 

7t),'?t:> "ro ^n»*T[oXqK* sdJ 

Xee . . ;\tflo!i -ISC oe.SMi 6l«q •«w 9/1 ,XC€X 

to December 1932, he was paid #15. 00 per week and from 
December, 1932 to October 5, 1935, he was paid the 8uhi of 
$6.25 per week. On a trial, the Jury found the Issues fop 
the Appellees, and It is from a Judgment on such verdict 
that the Appellant brings this appeal. 

The suit was started in 1936 during the lifetime of 
Hessel, and the complaint as filed consisted of three counts. 
The first two counts charged slander, 111 treatment and 
mental suffering resulting therefrom, upon which action 
abated with the death of Hessel in 1939. The third count 
which was amended after the substitution of the Administra- 
tors of the Hessel Estate as parties def en lant, charged that 
Hessel agreed with Appellant in an oral contract that Appel- 
lant should receive the same compensation for his services 
after January 1, 1931, es was shown in the former written 
contract for the year 1930, until such time as a new contract 
or agreement should be mutually agreed upon between Appellant 
and Hessel. The complaint further charged that no new or 
different contract was ever entered into between the parties; 
that Appellant continued to render services up to December 
31, 1935, completely performing the oral contract on his 
part but that he had only received part payment on his salary, 
by reason of which he had suffered great loss and damage. 

The answer of the Appellees sets forth two specific 
defenses, one of payment and the other the bar of the Statute 
of Limitations. 


,SSGI TtscfBi«oeG f>t 

;, es.dl 
LioqqA «d^ 






9;r»irjB^e e 

In support of his contention the Appellant submitted 
testimony In brief as follows: The two written contracts. 
A witness, Janet Robinson, who was eaiployed In the Hessel 
office diarlng the year 1930 and until February, 1931 testi- 
fied that she drew checks for the Appellant for the sura of 
#143.50 each month and that the last one was for Febmiary, 
1931; that In the early part of 1931 she overheard a con- 
versation between Galeener and Hessel In which the latter 
said In a discussion over the question of Appellant's 
compensation, "We will Just continue on as we have for the 
past year until I make a new contract." 

Mrs. Kelle lelley, another witness, was employed in 
the Hessel office from March 1, 1931 to September of the 
same year. She stated that when she first went to work at 
Hessel 's he told her Mr. Galeener was to receive |143.50 a 

Charles Dillman, another of Appellant's witnesses, 
testified that he was employed in Hessel 's office from 
November, 1929 to February, 1934, and Intermittently there- 
after when called; that Galeener was likewise employed 
during that period of tlrae and worked on books, collections, 
loans, income taxes and general work In connection with the 
Hessel office; thatt he heard a conversation between Hessel 
and Galeener shortly after he began work there in which 
Appellant asked Hessel for a new contract and the latter 
replied, "Well, we will fix up a contract all right, but not 
now, later on possibly, I believe he said possibly the next 
Sunday or something like that." 

I »rt ?• .t n ^ rt 

, .. bits 

... .. ,. .. ... ■ I . ■'*5i [qei 

..-.■f.t "Or?r -ifi.rj-fd ??iTiOs? TO Vf^CrtuS 

Homer D. Howard testified that he was an old friend 
of Heasel; that he knew Qaleener during the time he worked 
for Hessel up until the year 1936. Also that Galeener looked 
after Hessel at his home when the latter was sick, doing the 
cooking and staying with Hessel nights. Nelle Kelley also 
testified that in June, 1931, Hessel told her to make out 
the Galeener salary check for |15.00; that he was cutting 
down office expense on account of the depression. The ledger 
sheets from Hessels office show the salary paid to Appellant 
froffl June, 1931 to Deeeraber, 1932 to be at the rate of $15.00 
per week; from Deceraber, 1932 to October 5, 1935, to be $6.25 
per week or 025.00 per month. 

There are many other bits of evidence in the record 
that Galeener complained about the salary payments made to 
him and that he had many discissions with Hessel concerning 
the making of a new contract and about questions of salary. 
This complaint is also voiced in the letters introduced in 
evidence by the Appellees. It is the position of Appellant 
that no new or other contract was ever entered into between 
the parties, and that he is entitled to the difference 
between $143.50 and whatever amount he received during his 
entire service. He further contends that in any event he 
was never paid anything for the period from October 5, 1935 
to December 31, 1935. His testimony is not very clear about 
the time he quit although it ig assumed in his complaint and 
by his counsel that it was the end of 1936. However, the 
witness Homer stated that Appellant was working for Hessel 


> tte Aff.; 

;gfl^f«-' ■»'"■■ V ■« •■!■*^ 

,- csi&i'- 

•A u »^ T O 

Hi; ffllri 

., .... ... 3rf* 

>j-..'S£fon sir! x<i 
a- n.'f iw 

up until 1956, and there is no testimony in rebuttal of this 

On behalf of Appellees some 250 bank checks payable to 
Appellant were offered and received in evidence to (show oay'- 
ment. A few of the later checks had endorsed on the face 
the words *In full of all demands to date *•. The Appellant 
on the stand stated that this notation was not on the checks 
when received and cashed by him. It is also contended by 
Appellees that certain of the salary checks contained similar 
notations and that such '7or<3is were erased by Galeener before 
cashing the checks. None of the original checks «rere sub- 
mitted with the record in this case for inspection by this 
Court. The Appellees rely on the above checks as a defense 
to the clalffl of Appellant In this case. There is nothing 
in the record to show the reason for decreasing the salary 
of Galeener, or why it was so drastically reduced to a 
nominal amount. Vi'e appreciate the law of Illinois to be, 
that where there is a bona fide dispute as to how much is 
due and the amount is unliquidated, a payment of the amount 
claimed by the debtor to be due in full settlement, if 
accepted by the creditor, is a satisfaction of the claim, 
but it is also the law that vrhere the amount due a creditor 
Is ascertained and not in dispute, the payment by the debtor 
and acceptance by the creditor of a less sum will not operate 
as a satisfaction of the demand. It is only where there has 
"been a compromise in good faith of disputed demands, ^here 
there is an honest difference between the parties as to the 




x906i nerfw 



^ « ~« -4 


asaount due, that such an accord, with Batlsf action is binding. '^ 
Snow V Orleahelmer, 220 111. 106., Faraers & Mechanics Life 
Assn. V Galne, 224 111. 599. 

Here there la no explanation of the reduction In 
salary nor no new consideration shown for the change. Yie 
are inclined to doubt that the facta and circumstances in 
this case show a just and honest accord and satisfaction of v/ 
the debt owed to this Appellant, and therefore believe that 
the verdict of the Jury was manifestly against the weight of 
the evidence. 

The question of the bar of the Statute of Limitations 
was raised by a motion to strike and dismiss the first amend- 
ment to the coiBplaint and passed upon adversely to the 
Appellees, We believe the ruling i^as correct. 

We adjBit that the testimony for services due after the 

last payment on October 5, 1935, is not very definite, there 

is no^ contradictory testimony and when the entire evidence 

is read together it does not admit of the conclusion there 

was nothing due the Appellant for that period of time. The 

verdict ^^as for the defendant. If there is enoughiS^ in the 

record to show that the Appellant ^lyas entitles to a verdict 

for some anountj it was error for the Court to deny the motion 

for a new trial. Chicago & Alton R.R. Co. v Woolner Distilling 

Company, 196 App. 412. 

For the reasons above indicated the Judgment of the 

Circuit Court is reversed and retaanded. 



T ."t n'>l!!" 


. b?}bru.^c: 






aeneral No. 9284. 


JOM S. FERaiJSOH, l/ * 


Municlpal Gorpo3ra.tlony 

April Term, A. D., 1941. 

Agenda No. 3. 

Plaintiff Appe^€es,/)| 

Defendant Appellant. ) 

Appeal from 
Circuit Court, 
Sangamon County. 

1 l.A. t>i)5 


Plaintiff Appellees recovered judgments for daiaagea upon 
verdicts by a Jur*y in the respective guaa of |1^0 and $500 against 
the City of Springfield, from which judgments the defendant has 
appealed to this Court. 

Plaintiff Bessye toy Ferguson alleged that on the morning 
of April 12, 1938, after being driven to the curb in front of her 
home on North ninth Street is the City of Springfield upon returning 
from the election poll where she had been taken to vote and tdiile in 
the exercise of due oare for her o^m safety, she had stepped and 
violently fallen with one foot and leg into a deep post hole located 
between the curb and sidewalk, which had been negligently left unfilled 
and unguarded by defendant's employees, after removing a light pole 
or support from the ground by use of a "boom truck" while engaged in 
iBOvii^ and resetting electric light poles and lines owned and operated 
by the defendant city, during the process of widening said street, 
whereby she sustained serious and permanent injuries, and whereby 
the co-plaintiff, John S. Ferguson, her husband, was deprived of her 


.5 .016 fiiifxes^i .i^SSe .oM Xa'X^nfrO 

'• Jl. 

tu* lieqqA ^-isAbfte*! »Ci 

noqw a©,^*is*ifc ttyJ a^a&c^nl I)9-i9roof»'i sseXXsqcjA lll^Alal^ 

•sea to Sfioti al &iut> it&$ o^ jaevi'ab &ciao i»^£ ,a^rei ,fiX XXr^qA to 

;^aifni..^s'iL aoqw" feX®4tB«iJ^<;i£ to T?i#Jt0 iUii^ i3Ei, ^t^O^S itrffl^K li^'joll no ecc^ii 

at t^llsM ham •d'CT aj eaiiM aa^d Smi »dje dieJlKf Xloq flo/^o*ia »iiJ aioit 

i:'ji£ b^qq^Sia a»f. «£!■ ,\tfslB« nwo -^^^ lot •*XA9 «>i3U»- to &^ijci9X9- dxU 

ba^tao-ol aloat J"iJoc q^aei) jjt oi^ai SsX JMts soot e«o iUlw ^XifieXolv 

b»XJ.lAitu ,?t«I '^I^«$sii*9« as»d fcisii iioirit? ,:&X«if9l>i:^ i3ia« flp^atf© diiJ safvivd 

xxi ijaati^U'* «»Iii!w '^Jtoun.J aoocs*' a io «iaw xd J&i>:AioiSi diii^ coit i;'to^<^8 rto 

,;t»«''^ifi JbutAf! aiUa^&Xw to a^osioiq ©xy" jMiiiud ,tJ^Xa *««&c»t»6 »iii X^ 

-Xttil to JoevJliqaJb ««* ^Jbftedaiiil '^eil jCOBJJSia'l .S .^sdcX, ,ttX<liii.isXq-o« •xU 

services as a housewife and was obliged to expend money and time in 
caring for her. Due statutory notice to the city was alleged to have 
been given, and the case was tried by a jury upon the fifth and sixth 
counts of the complaint and defendant's answer denying all liability 
thereunder. Motions for directed verdicts were interposed by defendant 
at close of plaintiffs' evidence and of all the evidence and were denied 
After verdicts, defendant's motions for Judgment notwithstanding the 
verdict and for a new trial were also heard and denied and judgments 
were entered, followed by this appeal. 

Mumerous errors are assigned, the principal of which con- 
tentions were that the verdicts and judgments were contrary to the 
manifest weight of the evidence; that certain instructions were 
erroneously given or refused; that certain prejudicial evidence was 
admitted on behalf of the plaintiff and that statutory notice before 
suit to the city by John E. Ferguson was substantially defective and 

While the evidence is conflicting, it appears that at the 
time of the alleged injuries, the defendant was engaged in widening 
Ninth Street; that it owned and operated the electric llgjit and power 
system in the city and along the street in question; that while Mrs. 
Ferguson was being taken to the polls to vote, a crew of defendant's 
employees were engaged in moving and making certain changes on the 
line along Ninth Street where the widening was taking place; that 
upon being returned to her home, the car stopped in the resir of a 
*boom truck* of the city being used to pull up and remove light 
poles, which truck was standing next to the curb; that she alighted, 
stepped across the curb and violently fell Into a post hole from which 
she was assisted by the election car driver, Fred Y/ond, since deceased, 
a^d City Policeman Lapinski, who did not testify. Witness Melll 
testified in detail to the removal of the pole by the city, the 
manner In which the plaintiff was injured and to the subsequent 
filling of the uncovered hole by the city employees; that he had 


iiSxla bOB dt\l'i. 9ii^ aoqjj xtui *i:'x^ arw aaiso eil-t txxA ,ndvl8 n9»<f 

Xi'JtXjtti«jtI Llii ^l\.c.eb t&yiatiA B* Scuibii^t^b JE>na S&t&lcuaoo 9dJ to hoiwoo 

'j^iiitb sxo'ff bti& &en<^bXv& eds £L& 1g bns eonsJiivs ♦alli-ftielcr to aeolo ia 
©xid- ^Ibrus-iBdilvioa fans^bal not snojt^off a' Jns.of3'i:9f» taioHjisT TcsiflA 
BJ-a3!Rjyi«t ^JC-6 b9lae>b bcm irusftfi oqIs 9^«w lot'i^ v^^ji c lol JbfO&^*dlJ&«i»T 

S«43 ©Tlctosltaf) 'cXX^i^fi^'^Bdua saw cioeiJS'^dl .3 tuio\» xd xilo sai oi ^lim 


•i©5»cq f>njG! ^fiijjil oliJosIs sxio Ssiaisqc fins £>9cww ^l ijwi* ;J'»ei,te rfJaia 

&* SsLnbuBtsb Irk' wiNEO » .^a^'Of a» SJCXoq aii^t 9i t^£»i^U^ a«w iiofoi^*i»s| 

*jil^ «o ao^B«tio iiljf.i^^o s/ii2(i5« Jbu^s SK-ivciB si Jbeg^ssfls 9i«w ««*\oXc|tf9 

J;siii '.siO^Xq snisfjci aB« sclnsi)!* sAJ- s«?.sjis J^sartd-e dJ^nlK siioXa ectX 

t.tsd'niiiXft -Sii* «,;irfJ" ;c*%k<si aCj o«r ^xari saifui^J'Tj raw aiojriit' doliiv ,s9Xotj 

iioiriif EicTl tflod ■Jeoq s? o>«i IXal Y.XJfceXolv Ims^ cf-iuo aa^ «ao<sej& J[M»qqe.t« 

4jb3s*eoa.& 9Sii'.h Jjno^ bof^ »-^»Tiifc "sjbo ' i!oJt*«»X» ©ilJ^ v<S f»9^8i»e» a«w »ii« 

III»K G8©iiJX'r .XAX#6»i ^c-fi bift cxiw 4Xi£s«XQSi.i luafSSQMXo? t»*X© ^os 

ac^ xX^i-o ar.1^ '^«f 5Xo»j oil^ lo Xsvcme-Ti »i£J o3^ XX.6**|» al b9ltlSB9^ 

sawed up the old pole which was taken from the hole. Certain witneaflee 
for the city denied that they had removed the pole or that any hole whm 
left near the curb. 

Much space is given by appellant to argument as to the 
credibility of plaintiffs' witnesses and certain alleged contradictions 
in the testimony. These matters were before a jury, and in view of 
the conflict, it was peculiarly within their province to pass upon the 
probative force and credibility of the testimony of the various 
witnesses. It laay be fairly remarked that much of the testimony of 
the defendant's witnesses was inclined to be vague and inconclusive 
£^ to the facts and surro^ding conditions at the time of the occurence , 
and we hold without analyzing the statements or undertaking to pass 
upon the probative value of the testimony of tiie various witnesses 
that the jury were warranted in finding tiiat a post hole existed in 
the walk; that the same was left unguarded; that s:^e stepped in this 
hole to the full depth of her limb and was seriously injured, from 
which injuries she suffered for a considerable length of time and was 
unable to actively continue in the conduct of her beauty parlor 
business and in keeping roomers for profit in her home; that her 
husband was also deprived of her services and incurred both expense 
and loss of time in caring for her on account of her injuries. No 
assignment of error is based upon the amount of the verdicts, which 
we deem to have been moderate in view of all the evidence. Both the 
questions of negligence and due care were before the jury and were by 
their verdicts determined in favor of the plaintiffs and were, in our 
view, amply sustained by the evidence. 

It may be conceded as the settled law of this State that 
the verdict of a jury upon the faots where they are in conflict will 
not be disturbed by a court of review, unless the Court is firmly of 
the opinion from such evidence that the verdict and judgment are »/ 
clearly contrary to its weight, Mandelkow v. Meyer, 219 111. App. 286. 
We approved this principle of law in passing on the case of Crocker v. 
Hatcher-Joseph, Inc., 292 111. App. 646, 10 N. E. (2d) 970. 


.cfiuo 9x14^ iJteti ^l«X 

BjjoXofcV scil to ■iaofi;i<?89w aiij 'lo Ti*XlXtiXl)0'3:o jixri; ao'ro'l svXJjstfoacj 

©▼XewXen'OO^X bfis aasjfjY acf oo XsanXIonX aeir eaaeiyfl^tXw e ' ;»xieJjtiSj'5:9i3 9*1 J 

sons'xwooG 6Ai^ ^o »fflX«t »a.t cl'/s afipX^/£»«oo j^fiXAxl/t^'siiiB bax^ a^o*^ etii oi «« 

gBiiC oJ aiiX3U;v' Tlo fe!i^&aiiifevi"^-J'B »xl^ aiiXsitXjBfifi iitiodilm blod »« JbtuB 

a9ea9£^Xw f»iicXi£? s^lo .^eo^ajeaj' e/^j to 9x;Xav ^TX^i^o'o'r.q sii^ xto^iv 

nX i)&J'BX2C9 Qlosi crsoq js .;rafi# ^nXfenX^ al b&3&&iiav »i»w X'^^t «ii<J iBAi 

-.i.. r liX b^qqs^a &. a ^^bsU ;i>abiiiuaai.' »?!i©X aaw eafjtta ext^ J'«ii4' IaJL&h »tiii 

210*3:- ^ beTii {.it/. -iiXewoX'isa a^w oa^ cistXX lexl to xfjqsf? X£wl ©rli" o.J sXo*[ 

asw mza gasXJ T-o xf^gnsX aXda's^sBXssfio© a lot feeosltifa gde asXii/LfiX dcldw 

^xolit^q X&UiiBd t&A to ^oi/^fios &di al sanlS aoo \l9vlioA oS •ItiMoa 

•seii i^A^i lesiod lasi al ^Xtoiq lot Biemoo'i ;jiiilqss3f til beust B»f»jfXs«tf 

s^aeqxa iUocf JosioiiocX X>0J5 asaXvi^a rteii to ii^vXiqai) oaXe ef;-^ baa<iBUd 

oYi .esx-xiitnX i®ii to imi09o;» uo led aot 3nX"Xfio «i sraXo to aeoX Aba 

f£®Xriw ,?iJ'oXX!isv ax£i to rf-fufOin^ siSi noqii ij&sisd aX iotxs to J'aesfl^Xsitf 

«xl<J duoE .90ce&Xy» SfiJ XXjs to wsXv nl stis^^bote. fi»9Cf ST&a oi meeJb »w 

\,q' 819W Jbfis '^'Uff, oxis s-xotaa ^ipi> aoao siJJb inn* aan&sXXs®" ^c- arfcoX^a^up 

iwo ill ,snaw ij£i£ ettX;taX#Xq s^tj- to la?^! aX JbacXaria^^^ 8Joii>isv iX^a^ 

4Mi4 sJe^f^S Hldi tc waX j&®X**©8 s£i^ sJi £)al)9o«oo ©d' \im il 

ilt^ XsXXtac0 ftX i>iM x9iiS ei^dv swOflt dr>X aoqu x^^i * to J-oXferiJSV sxfct 

to "jlxnXt 31 ,;}Tj;aO ed;^ aaalnw .waxva'x to J'lifoo iS zd b&Qisjiatb sd joa 

\ 9^a iflatfliSfiir^ 6fljB .toX&'xav 9sit &&sLi ©srjstiiiTS iiojJB aott uoXnXqo 9Ji4 

,38* .qqA .iXI ex^i ^-xa^airf .v wo^iX^i^UWdi .J/laXew a^i o^ vnuyi^^jttoo ^XiiieXo 

,v i^:ioo*xO to ae*r adJ^ no anXaaaq ni w-sX to dXqXonX'xq aXxLt b9rciqqs »W 

.O^e <I)S) .3 .M OX jS^d .qqA .XXI SGS ».oxjI ^xlq9»oT»-iailo;rBH 

Concerning the alleged erroneous Instructions either given 
or refused by the Court, we desire to say, first, that the rlghta of 
the defendant in Issue under the law and facts herein were fairly stated 
to the jury imder defendant's Instructions One and Two. These 
Instructions required the plaintiff, Mrs. Ferguson, to pi\3ve by a 
preponderance or greater weight of the evidence, before she was entitled 
to recover, the existence of the hole at the point indicated from whlc^ 
defendant, by its employees, had removed a pole; that the condition 
created by the defendant i^de said gjround unsafe to travel thereon; 
that the defendant knowing such unsafe condition had an opportunity to 
repair the same or an opportunity to protect said plaintiff from danger 
therefrora; that the plaintiff fell and was injured a,s a result of said 
condition created by said hole; that on the occasion of her injury, 
plaintiff was in the exercise of due care for her own safety and could 
not by the exercise of ordinary care on her own paart have avoided the 
injury, and that a failure to prove any of these elements by a prepon- 
derance of the evidence or if the evidence on any of these elements so 
required to be proven were evenly balanced, "then you should find the 
defendant not guilty, as to the plaintiff, Bessye fey Ferguson." 

As to plaintiff John S. Ferguson, the jury were instructed 
at defendant's instance that he must prove by a preponderance or greater 
weigiat of the evidence the existence of the dangerous condition a.t the 
time and place involved herein as a result of the negligence of the 
defendant; that the defendant had notice of said dpJigerous condition; 
that after such notice of said dnjigerous confliitiOR the defendant had 
an Opportunity to remove the said dangerous condition or an opportunity 
to protect the plaintiff Bessye !lay Ferguson from the same; that the 
plaintiff Bessye IHb-j Ferguson fell and was Injured as a result of the 
said dangerous condition; that she was in the exercise of due care and 
caution for her own safety on the occasion of said injitry and that no 
failure to use cexe on the part of said plaintiff contributed to any 
degree to her said injury, and that as a result of such Injuries, the 


iBlStirt^ B^w 3xls Sloped tSonsi\''.v» sa*. to idi],Xmr i©»tes*i3 "to oojseiohcoqs^ 
o^^ t-^i/UJvtTcocitio as f^snd aoiJ.Umot >9t&.&tu} sivm ^ilvcn^ ta&hr.sH^^b 9iii iBdi 

OS roneffi^Id ©»»eii^ "io t.^^' co aoxjsfcjfcvs sriJ' tl to sons&ivs 9di to so/t0*ifef> 

9fl[^ *w BfoitJihiiofi mjo*x»^n^ »sit to aeae^telx© axij etca».^lTe ©li* to *rfai;«tr 

LOld-lfifioo ewoissxiad M«« to soivJoit tmi cfnabnstsJi) Siii Ir.ild' ;4fl«j&fi9t«f> 

cftd J^iteJ^ootdJb 9.rfi jiolvtlAfioo eyotssryinb fcijse to soiloii iif»«e tte^tfi ^Bsii 

i(;J'lfii;j'"rocvjo na t:o aolSlbnoo syoncaj^ftpS blee eii^ avoRKfj oS xaiiwStoqqo as 

9di SRjtio ;9ffiJFe adi soTt noajtfs'xa'? ^€*I s^essS ttiirrieXq 9Ai^ J^oe^oiq oJ^ 

QtlJ- "^o ^Iw.'3i»i js 9« bn-LislaX eeir feUB XX5»t aoE^/a^^^*? ^aM sitaaoS ttWfil«Xq 

iiflw 9ino 9Ufi to *>8io*S3X^ »riJ iii ««» ^xia ^?^ ;fK>i^lJ&r:oo strotasttftfc Mae 

on J^aii;t isfos viutn-t bln^ to nolaeooo ®/{« nc x.^©tr.3 uwo leil 'set noli'O.BO 

Xsta OCT fi9J0dliJnoo fri^Hlslq J[>i«« to *n«q sni^ «o 0-tBo aai; oJ^ s^^-uXLst 

axlv? ,e9lTcift,fti: Houb. tu .tlMBdi i^ 8» S&ds btis^ ^x^mlal biAB 'sail oJ- ©jyissfi 

plaintiff John E. Ferguson suffered injury; that if the plaintiff has 
failed to prove any one of ti.esfc thinj^s oj a preponderance or a greater 
weigilit of the evidence, or if you find tna,t tiie evidence upon any one 
of the elenents v;hich the plaintiff is required to prove is evenly 
balanced, "then you should find the defendant not igullty, a>i to the 
pl?.iatiff John S. Ferguson." All of these elements were serially 
numbered in the luatructlons and covered the material allegations of the 
coii?>ls,int Biid answer. ^?hlle 'Ye have not discussed all of the instruct- 
ions, we haTe carefiilly oon-gldered the same and find no prejudicial i/^ 
error in the ijivin^ or refusal thereof under the evidence herein. 

The proof of drjaasaa sustained by the plaintiff Urs. Ferguson 
would have amply J^tified a largex" verdict than was given in her favor. 
At the time of Mrs. Ferguson's injury, the evidence showed that she was 
earni:ag twenty aolla,rs per week from a beauty parlor business in addition 
to keeping roomers, which Income ahe -*as obliged to forego for a period 
of approxiiicitely 130 weeks, and tliat she sustained severe pain and 
suffering over a long period of tiiae. 

It furthei' appears that the plaintiff John E. Ferguson was, 
on account of her condition, deprived for ujany weeks of her services 
and froiia regularly following and earing for nis business of hauling 
and tracking and took care of nis wife, did housewoi'k and performed 
other duties in eadeavoring to bring about her recovery auring the 
above period, detailed in the evidence as covering approximately 130 
weeks. It further appears that medical services in endeavoring to y^ 
bring about her recovery included physicians' bills of $203 and a 
hospital bill of |75.95 and otuer enumerated expenses, for which 
plaintiffs were jointly and severally liable. 

Defendant aakes complaint concerning a certain hypothetical 
question or questions answered by a physician, and contended that the 
ease did not contain all relevant ox' admitted facts in evidence. 
From an e^camination of the abstract and record, we do not find tnat 
the question contained iaaterial or prejudicial oiaissions or errors 


mM tfUtilmlq &ii:t \1 *.sfU i-ttiJiat b9*!L»'i'^'J9 ft&BU^i.e'^ .^ t*M\ rttialmlq 

.•no Yjis naqw 9o*iaBlv9 afi* i«M''f>i^^rt OKiZ ^i "it ,eJ»fl«6lhr8' 9XW lo^fxfeiew 

8^; tXilitsi^ toil .Jftaijceta* 9Jt«f Mil fiUBodta ce-^ neil^t* j^son-sIf^cT 

-.i\oi(i.^i!«l 9iIJ to lis batBisfi&lb ifoff sVAri svr 9llif\? ."x&wenx 60 inl.f,X<jBco 

.•ar;>T«i ■rod at nsvig bjsw jCjsiy J-oltisv teQ'SBl n ly&lttSB^l h-^cklj? e^si^ M/Jow 

oiJlxaiw' fiJ: aasjfilsvd loXi^q ^JiJissytf a iaoiT 3Cfi»isr laq nallofc t^iiswdf ;^IirLBl& 

.boiisq p 10 i ogd'sol oJ- b^^tldo s^w 9i£a afltooril itolif* tSis/troci Skiers 9i 6S 

LnR tilnr, Q'taT&e ijaitl.Bj sua sda iMi Jbflts ,ajCte#w bCI XXs J 144212:0 *£qq£ to 

fcsfii'io'iisq biiis :^iowssDOii j&JtJb ^atiw alii lo aiaft al!4iol Jttfla ^xilieunit Saa 
OSI ^laJ'Biaxxo'K v^ ai3iT.evco sr. aoxietive aill ni t&XiJbiaL ,l)oli9q 9Vodis 

n-jMif/ 10 'i ^^:&^<^s^^yi} bit^sii&mitis 'xBtLio fina d€.eV| Ito Xlld' XjeJIqecd 
• c'ldsil \IXai»V9e ba^ tXJrilot eiaw altlJ-nlsIq 

at-' J ^dxi.^ fc»i>iB»j'iJoo JbfLK ^mjlolaiilq Jb x<^ Jba'Sdviiifc. axicX^saup tco flollaaijp 

.aofojjivj el a^aa'x fia^d-iab* io ^itfeveiei Xl6 alB^ndd #aK bib 9eb8 

ifiiii^ IwtJt'i vJaD, 6f? »# ,6ncoa*i £)«« jrejB-i^eiiB axW lo BoXlaiiXiB££d fif^ :i:f v*? 

as contended by tiae defendant. A particular point concerning tke 
resumption of laeastruatioa by the plaintiff did not bear upon the 
right of recovery, but could be contended only to have affected the / 
amount of the verdict. Ho point is made that the same was excessive, 
and we do not feel from an examination of the record that the Jury 
could have been Influenced in a manner prejudicial to the defendant 
in relation thereto. 

fhe notice given and duly signed by both plaintiffs to the 
City of their injury, when considered as a whole, complied with the 
statutory requireaents, and we deem the defendant's contention in 
relation thereto to be ssithout merit. 

Upon a full cunalderatlon of tiie abstract, briefs and 
arguments hereiii, we are impelled to conclude that the case was tried 
in a laanner that resulted la substantial justice as between the parties 
and t'lat a retrial hei'eln by another Jury ^<70Uld not result in different 
findings. Believing and finding that the record is free froa prejudicial 
ei'ror and that substantial justice has OQen done between the parties, 
the judgment of the Trial Court will be affirmed. 



©fi^ cJ- iiVHsalaS.Ki HJoa ird j^giiijie x.iJ*J& baa iisvijj aoiJon aiil 

.£>8snit*iii eo lliv ,t'xjjo0 IciTiT exli %<> iiimi^)Mi aii^ 




acneral No. 9287. 


Plaintiff Appell 


Defendants, ) 

Appellant. ) 

April Term,t A. D., 1941. 
.,jiks^endg Ho . 6 . . :-^^**"'" ' 

ii)pe|l from 
llrolit Court, 
IcLelui County, 

III.A. 656 


By tills appeal, the defendant Homer English seeks reversal 
of a judgment against him in the sum of twenty five hundred dollars 
entered upon verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff appellee 
Frank Reldel in the Circuit Court of McLean County. 

The defendant English, with two co-defendants, was charged 
with negligence and with wilfvGL and wanton misconduct which allegedly 
caused damages to the plaintiff when the latter 'g automobile collided 
with a truck operated by co-defendant Daugherty. 

The complaint was dismissed as to one co-defendant; the 
other failed to appeal, and the wilful and wanton counts were with- 
drawn from the jury on motion of the defendants. 

Defendant appellant contended that he was not guilty of 
negligence and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence 
which bsu's his recovery. These are the only questions to be determined 
upon this appeal. 

On November 14, 1939, at about 5:30 P. M. , being shortly after 
dark, the defendant was driving a new Packard automobile from his farm on 


eiOHI«I.II so 5fTAT8 ^^^fi 



> •Jh.jL 

-''»- *'■*'-• , -.laXIsoai-. 


8'SBlXoi j5«'idt>ffwil »vit ^^aaw^t to ail/a »iij at miis. i»aX*so ^tntna^al & %c 

^i!Jb®S«XX« ifeflxlw JoiifsitcoeXa! iso^uiew bjs*-. XwlXiw xic^iw bti^ tsDad^XXaan ifliw 

exf^* j^aefen©lt)b-oo ano o4 lineXf) bsv SaJL&lqmoti sxlT 

. awfl£.£>«9l©f) dil;* lo aoiicMi ho •^*u/t »j^ ecti nriaife 
Ic x^A't^''^ -i^^jR ^^^ ^^ iM&.4 bstm-eiiiioQ SctsilL^qq* #«A&wa1»(I 
aofiiyaxXgfltfi %io.?«dFJ^^isoo to tJ^Xlifj^ 8««r YiiinisXq ©di ^tjeili JbxtE eofis^^llsoc 

b^fiJ'f.■:■^•3iftP/ #'d" dif Bj-iot^i-ssjj'c vino *!it:$ sis ©e£>iiT .fS'SToc^TC aid aiad iloidw 

.Xaaqqa alrfi noqii 
[4#*!tj8 xXi^loxlt- s«X©d ,.5.5 .<s: OS: a ^rwocfjR J;3 ,9SeX ,,->i <i«>dftj©voK iiO 


Washington Street Road near Bloomington, Illinois. Hla son and nephew, 

who had been working on the fara, ^ere sitting In the front sent with 

him. As he was proceeding eastward on ?/est Washington Street toward 

the oity of Bloomington, he otoserved'a truck approaching from the east. 

The driver, a defendant in the lower court, motioned for him to stop. 

He brought his car to a stop on the south side of the gravel highway 

near the grass shoulder, and the truck stopped on the north side of 

the highway, almost parallel ^^ith his oar. The driver of the truck 

informed him that he had but one headlight which was "making a funny 

pattern* . The defendant then turned on his bri^t lights, got out of 

his autoaobile and went in front of his oar. '/Oille the defendant was 

m front of hie oar, the plaintiff approached from the east in his 

automobile, and, according to his testimony, dimiaed his lights twice 

as he approached. He also testified that he could see nothing beyond 

the lights on the defendant's oar, and that he did not see the truck 

north of the defendant's car, which he said was standing still and 

which was very nearly north of the defendant's car; that his rate of 

speed was between twenty five and thirty miles per hour; that he crashed 

into the truck and that the defendant English told him immediately after 

the collision tliat he, English, was responsible for the accident and 

would take care of everything. Plaintiff's wife and adult son, G-lenn, 

testified to similar statements at the hospital and that defendant 

English said, "!/ty bright lights caused hla to run into the back end 

of my truck," Witness Japson, a disinterested person who was upon his 

porch about a block away, corroborated much of plaintiff's testimony. 

Other witnesses testified to location of broken glass, oil spots and 

other conditions shown on and along the highway and on photographs. 

The defendant and his witnesses fixed the speed of the 

plaintiff's automobile immediately prior to the collision at from 

thirty five to forty miles per hour, and fixed the point of the 

collision between thirty five and forty five feet west of the rear 

of the defendant's automobile. They said the truck was stopped 

approximately thirty seconds and then proceeded in a westerly 



syi&^o^ .^^ae-i^S ao^Uf^Xdem^ iati^ no bT;jsw^BiS& 'snlb»^&o'^i s«« tif aA .alxt 

Xa«r£Ls^£i leviita 6£i^ to ebla |{ai>o& 9tiii nu qo4^G « oo luo aid: ^ii^iioid oH 

'tocifl js fifl-t^JiJii^ " S'R'' i^oJjt!.w iiiiji Xtiiari dixo tfijd i5«ii ©xi ^^i mill fursatal 

lo ^tiio jojj 4,e Jjil^jxl J^ifeild alii 110 iiyrriUJ.^ naxi*? ;Jfi»J&n©l»Jj sfiT . *irxai'i'«| 

m»v iiiAbaat&b aiit allfiv^ .ijso elil lo ;t«o'xt *U ^isew isn© »Xlcfo«olxi« alil 

aixl nl ia&s ©xC^ i&ertt i)9i3lojBcnciq« ItlXJ'filijiq axii^ t^Xiso elri to ^aotl ul 

3>olw^ atfdiili Kix! 65«salfc ^•v/ictliliB'i(f uld o^ 2i*^lJ[;'ioc'att ,i>n« ,9llcJ0ffloJ^ii« 

::i:oj;nJ sa,? &;»-a ^on ^lii ^ti Ss.iii boB ^isc e'^rmMetoi^ ini^ tm a^txlaXI a/iJ' 

i&A3 XXl^s anl£ a«* i>li<r o£[ doliiw ,i«o a^.tmioiis'iaXf c^^tf to .xl^'xoa 

lo 6^«n alii ^/witf jias ^'^afiiba^tah ssnU %o iU'SOfl ■\j;X*x»^ V^tv a^w liolJhr 

aiisAio ari ^imJ I'lirofk laq a©IX« •sijitim turn &vlJ t.ja&^s n©ow^s<i eiiw jii9*qs 

s^Ijs XXsJ«Ji)©i8aii isXii bxai ialX^nS Jii/iXifi'jIskb fef*^ wTAiii bty& 3ioirx# GiI4 o-Jni 

I>K^ in^bloof^ i>Mi "iol aXcile£j;i;q«9*i' a«w ,ii«lXafla ,*£ ^&£ii ncxa.lX/4>« «4df 

»rJisK' ^xsoa J^XyijjE; i>iifc' ©liw a*11;14aXai;^ .aaIxl^K;*i««si to siao a^U;^ bluow 

ta» :icA<i nni oSui tun oi aid l/sai^ao ©iil^iX ;frIal*Ki X^i" ,l>lfi8 xiaiXgfia 
alii noqii s*^ Oii* lioa'iesq ii&.?e4:3i©^KX8lXj a ,nor.i:r&T. esaeatlR ".iotn-j \t£; to 

Ijfljs »4oqe Xlc ,aeiiX^ e-ajio'itJ lo fioX4ei>;I oS bBXtii^^^ adaeaa^lv i9jti;ro 

• atiqij'idoJOJlc: jao fijcu v^vifeXii «Ml<J 3^coxb baa ao to»o£te anoUifcao^ lexi^o 

adJ to i>a»qa «£i.} b»xlt n^e&BbtiSVit slj^ JbfiA ^xui^£i&te^ aiiT 

KOTit ^fi aoialXXoo sri* o^ loliq YX&«^A>Xi)eoEl eXldo«5o;J«A a^ttl^^fixAX^ 

aifit to ^cioq azU Laxit ijus ^issosi 'xaq usijtci Vxo'5^^ o^ 9rl\ x^ttAJ 

liiei &xi;t to «»3ew ^sat avlt ^s^tbdI Ija'^ €Vlt xcTtiilJ^ n©»w^0«f nslalXXoa 

Daqqo-te RBW iOiTiJ ariJT Alee ^arfU ,©Xiooiao.^«a e • ineiwjatafs arii to 

The driver of the truck testified that he had reached a 
speed of eight or ten lalies per hour r/hen the oolllslon occurred and 
that he was at least fifty feet west of the English car. He and the 
occupants of the English car all testified that the tall lights on 
the trucK were lit. English testified that the cab of the truck In 
which Daugherty was riding was a little further west th?5.n the place 
where he sat in hie automobile - "about three feet in my opinion". 
(Rec. p. 69.) 

The BUffioiency of the complaint is not questioned. Aiaong 
other things, it chargee that the defenda-nt's automobile was faced in 
an easterly direction in such a manner that the beams of the headlights 
shown into the face of the plaintiff and coEspletely obscured and pre- 
vented hia from learning of the presence of the truck stopped upon the 
highway; that the headlights were turned on bright and were never 
dropped or dimaed upon the approach of the plaintiff's autoraobile; 
that he stopped his automobile in such a position that he knew or 
should have known that an automobile coming from the east was in 
danger of colliding with the truck stopped upon said road; that he 
stopped his autoiaoblle upon the main travelled portion of the highway 
and failed to leave a clear and imobstructed width of at least tw^ity 
feet opposite said automobile, when it was then practical to have 
stopped at a different place, either upon or off the highway, all of 
which was in violation of Section 185, Chapter 95|, Illinois Revised 
Statutes of 1939. 

The rule is well established in this State that the 
defendant's negligence is a question of fact to be determined by a 
Jury. If from the facts bearing on the question of negligence, 
reasonable men of fair understanding might draw different conclusions, 
the question is one of fact and not of law and must be submitted to a 
Jury. Hicks v. 3wift & Go,, 285 111. App. 1, 1 N. E. (8d) 918. Con- 
sidering the evidence in tae light of this rule, the Court did not 
err in submitting the question of negligence to the Jury. ^y^ 


-d^ ba^ sH .-i^o i(»ils«25 ^d:^ lo ;r«snr Jheol ijcmt ^njc»I ^m subw »a ^aeU 

at :iom^ 9ii^ to ^^mo mii i^d^ beltlA^^^ Aatlsti"^ '^11 q'^bw AoinJ sdJ 

. '^Roliilqo \p ^^ -i^esl iiontli iuo^^ft* " hLMo^^^ua «lii t\l Asm 9ii 9i«i{« 

•i«v«iSf »;isw iji^s ■*filei'X«[ no x>«inwJ- fe'i»^ ©.JiiiSlXflasii «iE£^ ^jBXf4^ jX^WiiSi^t 

oii ;^46ii^ ji)*iOT »i.<^a itoc^ j&0qq«^a jioifti feoCJ M*iw BrjJtfiilioo '^x> TKJSn*!) 

to 1£M \XAofiiB^^ 9di tlo ICO sjoqw i»jd^X« ,#fiMaI<t «neTC»ttjy!> « i» b9q.qo4a 
f5««Xv»;"i eXostiXII ,4-8© i^^-^eift) ,3fil isol^fise to noWiiXoXv lU saw ^oXrfw 

•€i;ex to s9</iiid^£;fc 

& Xd bemtt^iai^b ati oJ- iof^t to fiol*rB«»p b s^l *r>ii3SXXso*i 8*^n.5!i»i-f9t»fi 

,aoa8*iXX&«^t **.o jn^i^'sewp m\i fso £ni'r«®d e*o*t ail? siC^I 11 ,x^isl 

,e£ioi»i;X©noo J"fi»T£»ltX& *r&'sb i&siM ^ibss&iBtsbaiJ 'sXat to caui sXdcnoaa^'x 

.3 oJ^^laai^je eo i^wia ibfifi w*X to ioii bas. 44^ct to eat* si noXissjirp siij 

-for; .6i£fe (iiS) il .K X "V-^ .qqA .XXI dSa ,.oO A i-tiaS .v aielH •Y'Si'l 

Joft iiXfc J-itJoO aJJ ^Blut ^iiii to ^rfj^XX ei^ ni «OAetlV9 ©xlJ siiii»J&i« 

The queetlon of whether plaintiff exercised due care and 
caution for his otra safety was also one of fact for the Jury, unless 
his conduct was so clearly and palpably negligent that all reasonable 
minds would agree that he did not exercise such degree of care and 
caution as a reasonable, ordinary and prudent person would exercise 
under the same clroumetances. Wedig v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 
282 in. ^pp. 370. 

We have carefully read the abstract, briefs and examined 
much of the record in this case. Under the evidence herein, the case 
turned upon questions of fact wherein a jury might have found either 
way depending upon their view of the probative value and credibility 
of the testimony of the respective parties and witnesses herein. 
Under the facts in evidence, we are constrained to hold that the 
record contained ample proof of plaintiff's cause of action to Justify 
and sustain the verdict, which does not appear to be contrary to the 
manifest weight of the evidence, v'/e have examined and considered all 
of defendant's contentions and assignment of error and find nothing in 
the record that would Justify this Court in reversing the judgment of 
the lower court. 

The judgment of the Circuit Court of McLean County will 
therefore be affirmed. 



PSjlFiu ,t:'si/t 0^ '^--^ ^OMt to «jffo oaXis ax!^ Y^J^s^j^b /wo Bid 'xol r.oi^iijM 

Bfii; ei^%t> 4:0 df«i;(;>di< it'Oi^iB ^el«}'^exd Sou bih &ii ■Smiii ostL-gR bltitnf mbmln 
•«f 0^0X9 feltrow «oat»q Ssi^Hana bsm t^naHyw tSldjiftoajRoi s bs nctiuAO 

.(W5 ,qo(A .XXI sac 
ft««lBisxe jbiiA etslid ^.tOA'i^ad.m mi bast -cXXa«T:9-i*& evjsil 9^ 

T.iiXldi^»*to fiiia 9*/Xav svla'^do'scr ©iii t*^ weJtr Tled4 iioq« ^tbn^c^b x*m 
XXa Bt9iBhlsaoo bnsi foenifi^xe dTAfi ®W .aajiscivj sriJ Ic ,?iial5»» *f©»lXaaai 


ex rel, LEO Jf. RATKOWSKI, et al., ^i 

SDWARD J. KE^LY, as Mayor df the City 
of Chicago, et al, , 







3\11A. 657 



tj''' The relators are the owners of separate judgments against 

Cl. Ithe city of Chicago rendered July 14, 1938, aggregating 131,564,98. 
They filed a petition for mandamus to compel the payment of these 
Judgments^ The petition alleged the judgments were due and owing 
prior to January 1, 1955; that there was sufficient money In the 
Judgment Tax Fund to pay the Judgments and that payment should be 

The answer of the city admits the rendition of the judgmente 
prior to January 1, 1935, and -eiat the Judgments are for liquidated 
debts due but avers the petition was prematurely filed in that while 
there was ^107,685,52 in the Judgment Tax Fund there were other 
Judgments against the city also entered prior to January 1, 1935, for 
liquidated debts to the amount of sf2,533, 180,04; that one of these 
was in favor of the Sanitary District of Chicago on which the last 
of several payments was made by the city December 20, 1939, leaving 
unpaid the principal sum of v?2, 515,000; also that one Cohn and the 
Northwestern Yeast Company hold Judgments against the city for 

167,086,06 and il30,492.78, respectively, both of which were rendered 
prior to the Judgments of relators, and filed petitions for mandamus 
to compel the payment of each of these Judgments prior to the date 
on "fcftileh the petition of relators was filed, namely, February 27, 
1940 i 

The city, therefore, contends that relators* suit is pre- 
cluded by §697a of the Judgment Tsix act (Smith-Hurd Anno. Stats,, 
ch, 24, p, 381), This section in part provides: "Judgments against 

( clOi^UJI -50 3TATS HHT 10 HJ^Oai SHT 

( ,^ tela «9 jxawoM'AH .^ oaj ,x»i xe 


.TflUOO TIUOHID ( / ^\ I \ I •▼ 

.iTHUOO 31000 ( xilZ^ srft lb -io^bM aa .YJ^iS/J ,L OHAWaa 

( » ♦Xa iTs ,oaBolilO to 

T68.A.I1I8' •■""'^^ 


.8G,:^aa«XSf anidBSQ-^iaBAtSSGX ^:S^I xLiil JJQiaJ&nsi oaaolxlD to x^io ^Ail 
assfW lo a-fiBffiicBq ©ritf Xaqmoo o:r aumafinAffl tol noX*l:r©q n SaXll ^s^T 

»ri^ fll xanom cj-flsioitlwa asw aisitd- JarU ISSGX ,X Yi5«fl«"C' o:^ -xoXiq 
o<S bluQdB irtBBVCBq iBdi ban Btnem^bisl adJ ^q oJ Jbnul xsT ;rn9rasf>ijL 

6e;fi5biwplX lot Bt» atnem-^ul sriJ ;rx}ffi' f>nfl ^asex ,X ^ci^wnsL o? loliq 

idv i&A^ ni ibsXil TtXeii/oBmsiq bbw noliliBq. arfd" bistb ^Jjcf sub aideb 

i»tiio sisw e'i9fi? .5aij^ xbT tfnearslJwL ©rid" nl Sa.388,V0X| saw oisriJ 

l,S5eX ,X TcifiuaaX. oS -xoliq f>«n9*n9 osXb ^Jlo sdi Janl«3fl a*fl»ffls5ift 

BsriU IG ©no isiiii -.^COSX J.^Q ^P^<^ to iniscssm ecii ot acTcfeS f.9*afeli;pXX 

i9&£ Bdi rioXffw no oasoiriO lo ioliialQ ^ijecTiMa ad* to lovst al bbm 

atr&9l ,e5GX ,0E" iBKimo^a x^i^o Bdi x<i 9^«a ««'»' 8*n9Jfl"^q lanevsa to 

0£i* bn& flrioO ©no :fsri;^ oaXs ;000,8Xe,2«. to ajub Isqioniiq Biii blaqnu 

lot T^Ji-' ^ *^ ^fanXasa ai-nsm^wL bXorf xnJsqmoO ^aAsY xne^eswriJ-xoM 

•xsfinet 9i9>^ aoJLW to diod .^XevWoeqaoi ,*,05| £>nB Q0.d80,T8$ 

fOBbam lot anoXJX^aq AeXXt fin« ,Bioi&lQi to BCTnofiiafii/f. 9£i* o.t loXiq 

BiAb 9f» oJ -ioltq B:tciBsrsbul 98 ad* to riOMS to Jnem^Bq ©d* Xeqiaoo o* 

,VS xiflf'xrf*^'^ r<:l®fflsfl ,69XXt 8ijw BioJBXei to noiJIJeq ©rf* rfoXrfw no 


-9iq Bl JXije «bio;?bX»'i ^bx« afjns^tnoo ,9'iot9nerfd' »Y.J5"-to defl 
..smt. .ofliii'i b-xwH-£»lffl3) JOB xj»T inBm-gbul. -.ii:t to flViQag ^cf b^bulo 



such city shall be paid out of said fund In the order In which the 

same were obtained. " 

The city also contends plaintiffs are precluded by an ordi- 
nance of the city of Chicago. (Municipal Code of Chicago, 1939, 
§§7 --29.) This ordinance Is not set up in the pleadings. However, 
we took Judicial notice of it and held it valid in People ex rel . 
Krajcl V, Kelly . 279 111^ App, 22 at 29. The ordinance, lllce the 
statute, provides Judgments ''shall be paid In the order of the date 
of entry upon the records of the court, " 

It is admitted mandamus was the proper method to compel 
payment of Judgments against the city. Relators further contend 
the date of the order of entry of Judgment does not determine the 
order of payment and in support cite the three cases of People ex 
rel^ Farwell v» Kelly . 361 111, 54, 367 111. 616 and 367 111, 631, 

The only witness who testified upon the hearing was Mr. 
Hill of the city comptroller's office. His evidence disclosed pay- 
ment of a number of Judgments without regard to the time of entry. 
These payments were not, however, voluntary and with two exceptions 
were made out of funds other than the Judgment Tax Fund, Relators 
call our attention to People ex rel« Mercantile Nat'l Bank of 
Chicago V, City of Chicago . 307 111^ App, 667, where a judgment of 
mandamus ordering payment of a judgment against the city was af- 
flrmed# We considered that case in People ex rel, Cohn v. Kelly . 
508 111, App, 50, and said the "principal question was vrhether the 
City could properly loan |60G, 000 out of the Judgment Fund to be 
used for other purposes. The court held this could not be done and 
it appears if this was restored to the fund there would be suf- 
ficient to pay the claim, " Upon that ground, apparently, the 
Second Division sustained the Judgment of the trial court. 

In People ex rel. GJ-ertz v, Kelly . Gen, No, 41479 (opinion 
filed February 17, 1941) this court following the Krajcl and Cohn 
asee held the Judgment disregarding the tax refund Judgment 

di Aotdv nl t^bto Qii^ al bnul Mm» to iuo bl&q ecT lladu \ito dou6 

Jbio rijs v.Gf fe«f>uXo«'£q b«i« c^ttJtJniBlq 8J5)«»*noo o«l3 yjMo eifT 

aria- 9:111 ^soamllno srfT .§S ?a 22 ,qqA .III ©TS . YlXea ,v JtoLeil 
&& ari^ lo isfiio 9f© fli X)JiBq scf IJJsrfs" 8Jfneinsi>i;t, aefilvctq ,ed"u?fiJe ,.■...> o ^^iltnul 8toJj»i!0H .ijJlo srf* ^-anJasB a*n»flTsAut lo ;fn9un;jBq 
9^i 6^filffl•r»#»^ Jon a®oB Jusisr^ljjJt lo ^i3'/i© lo i6f>io «xi:f lo sd-sf) srii' 
:sg gXcrog'l lo 8»e,ss s«T:ii3' arfiT oJ'io Jioqqws ni JbnB ^fnaenjaq lo nsMo 
I5d ,XII VaS Bn« SIS .XII Vf!S ,^S ,1X1 Ids . xXXel .▼ XX^^yg^^ .Xei 

.-rM BBW gniiBsri erfS- noqtr boLli^iBet odw assniflw TjXno sriT 

.^.'■l -oaeoXoslfi ©OflftSlYS bXR ,9o111o e*i9XXoiJqmoo xfXo BJ£f lo XXXH 

tifn® lo ssalS erfif o# Mass's: tuodiflyj Btn9B(gbul lo iscffflun n lo Jneffl 

olJqeoxQ ovr* riS^lw ons '^iBJnjiXov .isveworf ,Jofi ©isw atneai-^jaq »eeriT 

lo^sXeH .iijffu'? xsf itt9«rghti1 erf3" i!«i© isxfJo B&mrl lo Jjjo sfisiH ©lew 

1..- ^i ^^ S X*J';&?! aXX^JTaoicH ,Xsrt xg sXcroaq: ot HoXitfi©?;:?^ •sjjo XXao 

c jnam^i^i^i 3 ©isfi.- /^■■'- . . '" ' " '"'■ ' .o^g oXriO lo X$ t0 ,v oagolilD 

-Is saw t*lo s^^' 3-riiil^-;'ai; Tiir3'.:,j.r;ji, •. To itiBtax&q 3nliei>'X0 ix/flialJnafl: 

. ^XXa^ ,v mfoD ,l9'i X& eXgo»*l nl saso ;t«ri:r X>»n9fcXaitoo sV ,6eflrtll 

153" tsrirf^ifer BBV nolts^up XaqXanXiq* sriit .Blaa baA ^OQ «qci'. . ' '" 305 

ed o* Srru'^ JiiSE^firT, eifif lo ^uo 000 t^08# rtsoX AjXieqc^q biuco x^lO 

'jf. 9nob ffd ion fiXwoe bIjS.^ Meri ^nci/oo »riT ,8S8oqr[«q i©il*o lol ^©bu 

-'-fifa ©<f 6Xxrow ©isifi* JSinirl edt orf" J&a-toJBSi sjsw Blrfif 11 etaeqqjB *1 

9ff? tVXJnsrtsqqja ,3ni;oT? tssri* noqU " ^iaXo ©riJf '^aq ocl' JnsXoil 

.it-suco XsliJ 9d^ lo Jnem^J&wL sri* bsal&^»U9 nolslvld BnooeB 

fioinXqo) &V^X. . . .iLM •'^ aJ i-at) ^Ibi xe aXqoel nl 

.. *«* Xaf.A'q ©xlo^ a^iiwoXXol tiwoo airi* {X^SX »?X riAi^^tfel X>©Xil 
^r -L "^rftf f>Xsxl B©a* 


statute to be erroneous and reversed It, This court Is committed to 
the propositions that the ordinance and statute are valid, as was 
held in the Kra.lei and Cohn cases. We do not understand the Supreme 
court in the Farwell cases holds to the contrary. 
The judgment will be affirmed* 

O'Connor, P.J,, and McSurely, J,, concur. 

3 AW 8A ^Jbils\r diJB e^infisd^a J&oa sofl£ni£iTO er{^ tadt isstotilBoqcnq odit 

tbssnl'i'iB ecf lilw ^naingJ&wt »xiT 



/ Appellant «, ..^•^-"-"■"W"^'' 'J 

/ .^,.-^— X ^«..-.— -"""""" ^ / ) <!I^CUIT COUHT. 
„ij»i— "-"-"^ \ / ) 


ia>wAm> J. KELLX, as iuiyor of the/City ) \ 

of Chicago, at ftl.j/ / A \ _ ^ ,>- 

»llaee, / y X '^ "^' 

i;t.,a,, ^57 


Bala tors, owners of unpaid Jucigaasnts agalnet the City 
of Chioai^, filed a pa tit ion praying for vandams to ooopel 
payowiBt froBi the JudgBient Tax Fund, Tii?* City answered denying 
relators* right to m^iKlaaus and setting up the defense that the 
petition was premature a^nSi the suit precluded by § 697A of the 
Judgasnt Tax Aot (Smith-Hurd Anno, St&t., Chap 2A, p, 381 )• The 
court heard the evidence , found for defendants and dlsBiseed the 

On appeal to this oourt the Judgment was afflxved, A 
petition for rehearing was denied 4pril 14, 1941. The opinion 
disoloees that the decision of this court followed our prior 
decision in People ex rel. Cohn v, Kelly . 308 Ill.App. 60, where 
under siailar facte it was held relators there were not entitled 
to aaintain the suit. 

On April 88, 1941, relators made a motion to set aside 
the order denying their petition for rehearing and to continue the 
matter. In support of the notion our attention was called to the 
fact that the Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal in P*»ople 
ex rel> Cohn ▼, lelly . and that the appeal was pending in the 
Bup»»aP" Court, The motion for a rontlnuanoe was allowed, 

aelators no^ move that the petition for rehearing be 


jt^ not to ttfx^A «« ,XaJii£ A ciKAwca 

ftitt .<XS<^, *q ,i^:-: q&ti^ ,.*&?« . ./•.) d^dA xaT lawitftirl 

^ai^ bi>9islaalb bst» u^n^^m^'^^^b tot bauct ^»&n9t>lyr9 wit A«ji«ii f*sjtfoe 


AaXtUn* ton ns'» 9«!t«j^ vtot»i9n Silwi >iiJ:«lt ^nAotf 

Ai«« 5^w o» «0Jfvte« fi »fo*«i si«^8X<!»'i ,X^€X ,8S Xii^A flO 

tit o9 h%li -'r,iJ«*1 ■• iTOqqiia ux ,t^f1t»m 

itll«w«d, the Judgment of ttie trial court reversed and the oattse 
remanded with directions to the trla.! oourt to issue the writ 
forthwith, Xa support of thlst motion they submit the opinion of 
the 8«tpren« Court in People ex pel, aohn v, Kelly . No. 26175, in 
i«hioh petition for rehearing wee deniea. Moveaber l?th, 1941. 
There are no euggeetlons to the eontr&ry. !nierefore, in eonforatlty 
with the opinion of ^e Supreme Court in th&t e&ee, the petition 
for x^kectring here ie granted, the Judgment of the Cireuit Court 
reversed and the oausse remanded to tb&t oourt with directiene to 
ieeue the writ ae prayed forthwith, 

M^ CAUai ipipWP ^IfH DIRl;.CTXONS. 

HeSiJtrely, JP, J«, and ©•Connor, J. eonour. 

0^ eAQl^e»*)Ut& jf;fl'«' fxife^ft t^^-^rf^ ot tftAmamn 9*miM (MBfit l»ii* Jhnaiorvni 

41963 / /'■' m 

THOMAS A, M0RHI9, JR., and ) /' ii>-^ •-"""'"" A '^ I \ 


Appelleee, ) / ,.-,,.--'--""'"' .1 

g ) i^^-^^^^^ OF aU^RIOR COURT OF 

_^^^^'^i I COOK COUNTyI entered July 15, 


\ AppeX3fant, ' ) 


•|ITTERS0^[^>'T ) I \ <z 

\ Appel3fant. / ) | 1941^ 1 ":^ \i" A ^ t^ »*¥ 

o 1 1 'i ^A* Qo7 


Defendant appeals from an Interlocutory order which 
restrained him from disturbing plaintiffs in their posseeeion of 
certain premises and from proceeding with a forcible entry and 
detainer suit against plaintiffs to obtain possesfsion of the 

Plaintiffs and the defendant entered into an agreement 
wherein defendant agreed to convey to them a lot in Gook county 
for 16900; plaintiffs paid #1,000 cash and it was agreed that the 
balance should be paid by them through an P, H. A. (Fe-r'-eral 
Housing Administration) mortgage, *' 

Apparently there was some dispute between the parties, 
and in June, 1941, plaintiffs filed their complaint for specific 
performance. They asserted that they had paid ill, 000 down on the 
purchase price and that the balance was payable upon completion of 
a building then being erected on the lot; that subsequently 
plaintiffs made an additional payment of |250 and executed all the 
necessary papers and deposited the expenses in connection with the 
P. H, A. loan; that defendant refused to provide waivers of con- 
tractors' liens on the building and has failed to deliver a deed 
to the premises although plaintiffs are ready and able to pay, 
through the mortgage company, the entire balance due under the 
contract to purchase; that plaintiffs are in possession of the 
premises but defendant is seeking to oust them from possesBion, 
The eSmplaint asked that defendant be ordered to deliver to the 

»3X -^IJi/X, 6©i9;r«9 y^YTHtlQO XOOD 

■i"T."-=r .J fnr'i'^oR 

^'aa ,A.i- 

silJ i&Ai b^fit^a aaw Jjt /^os rfaso 000 4!'^ filaq eUliffllalq ;00€d^^ net 
Isi9l5«'5) .A .' / ■■•leg A-^uo'xdi fli9rf? "sicf filjsq etf filuoda eoiiAXscf 

oilioeqa 10I ;J-ni3lqEoo liariJ l>9lll a11:l:fnljBXq ^Xi^^X ,eniil. nX i>nfi 

eiCJ «o m'jfo^ 000»X^: .6i:Bq bsjti X'JJft* isuii f>«Ji98aj9 "^EftifT .»oflBBrioli9q 

aoti 9L<ivaoo «oq« 9lo'aY^-<J 8^1^ sonsXarf BAt issii .&fta 9©iiq sssiio'xiiq 

itX;?ji9tfP9*iitfjj8 J^jerfj? ;;foX ^if* ao J&o^anis anXiwf c©i{# anXSXlwcT a 

rfJ XXiJ X>9^uot9x« &nB OeS| to JnBfflxsq Isnoiii tbb^ n« afeaa alti^nXsXq 

/i* ri*iw «oXJo»nnoo nl B»en»qxs sri* l>©*isoqef) fens snaqaq ^Asaeoen 

-noo lo 9i5Vi3W «»i;>lvoiq oJ f>®a»lsn Jnjafscel^^X* tf;srl;? ;nfioX «A .H ,1 

J&3©6 3 tevlXaif o;r &8XIj91 sjerl Ji«B snlfcXiud sriJ no anelX 'eioJoaii^ 

^XBq_ oi eXdB fins x&as'x 9^r ^ifittiittalq si^uodtlB asaimenq 9iSt ot 

odi I0 noifl?©ssoq nj^ sn.i sttliatAlq iAdt l^HMdnnuq o^ iiiST.^no9 
. toX3 8e»8oq aro'zl mari;? ;fauo oi sflXaCeoa al ^luabflatafc Jiicf ssaloeaq 
3113" 03' lavl.r "vie ©d J .. • ,x<ap©« Mff 



plaintiffs the waiver of liens In order that the mortgage contem- 
plated could he made and the balance of the purchaae price, by 
means thereof, he paid, . 

In July plaintiffs filed a petition asking that defen- 
dant be restrained from disturbing plaintiffs In possession of the 
premises and that he be restrained from proceeding with a forcible 
entry and detainer suit which he has commenced, seeking possession 
of the premlees* The petition further alleged that plaintiffs 
are ready to perform their part of the contract but are prevented 
from doing so because of the refusal of the defendant to produce 
certain papers necessary to procure the mortgage contemplated by 
the agreement of the parties. 

Upon the complaint seeking specific performance and the 
petition asking for the Injunction, the court ordered the writ to 

Defendant appealing first says that the court had no 
Jurisdiction to restrain the defendant from prosecuting hie action 
In forcible entry and detainer, asserting that the matters set 
forth by plaintiffs can be properly raised as a legal defense In 
the forcible entry and detainer proceedings. The point is without 
merit. The court had the equitable right to order specific 
performance of the contract and also to try the legal right of 
possession. The right of possession was incidental to the right 
of specific performance of the contract. 

In Cordell v. Solomon . 234 111. App, 430, 439, it was 
said that injunctions will be granted until final decree if it 
appears that less harm from thlB course will result to the enjoined 
party if he should be finally victorious than would accrue to the 
other party, in the absence of an injunction, if he were the 
winning party. The primary purpose of such a preliminary injunction 

-^c (9oi'xq dBBTCoiuq &dS lO sooAlad ^tii baa eJbaK scf 511100 bstAlq 

^blMq 96 ^loeiarlJ snaeio 
flf'ifvi? f&df SflislBa aotiU 1.11 atllJfiijaXq ^Xi;l» fli 

il^ to flol3a©«Boq fli sfSi^niBlq aniefixfiTslfc «<nl J&«BZ8'x;f8*>'i M ^nA5 

Idto^ol 3 ri^^tw gni.&eaoo'-iq aoil fisnlinJ^oi ecf ari ?A£l3' I>ai8 B»alaryxq 

BlIt^nlBlq, i^idt ^s^gsIXs tQjd^ij;^ aol^ltsq sdT •aesisd'xq axf? to 

^ajj&o'xq c:f itns^nstsJb 9idi lo lanv1&^ 9di to saunoecf oe sitiol) so^t 
tircT &d^BXqni9^not) ai^BS^iois 9r{a^ ertifoonq o^ Y'^^^asodfl ansqaq al&^i90 

«Bdl^i:£q exl^ to taem99t:sB 9di 
dt bn& BotiAssnolieq oltiooqa gnljlsaa ;fnlsXqmoe sii^r coqU 
o^ jfJhrw »rftf 6919M0 iiuoo miS ^aoS:foiwlnl fidt not gxTiias aoiitl^feq 


o£j J&JBxl iiisoo Bdi JaxfJ a"v;s« i'aiit '^ila9qq& 3'it&Bff6teG 

citoja eiii snXJL'Ooaoiq arcnt JnsijflstaB ari* nlui^eai o;J ttotiolbeii.iul 

V »a Bisi^jaffl ad* :fad[;f Snl;J"'i9aaA ^1BtilBinb bna \1tn9 aXo'lo-sot al 

at eenalafe X^:^el j* a,^ ^isaXai ^J^ieqcxq ecf nao atti^tnisXq ^^^ ditot 

jiort^tlw el Jnlo ^ . .nJtJbftaaoiq lenlA^al) 6a» iftJiia 9XdX«not axf* 

oitioaqa laij'xo cS" JiialT &Id&iiup9 9d:i bjui d'lwoo axIT «^i«x8si 

to a^xigii XAgal ©xi* X'^ 0* oqXb £>nja iJoantfnoo mdS to egyCLsiinotaaq 

*xl5ilT o;^? o? I^j^n?'" /:f;ni ^ a\^ fiolaaoaaoq to id:gti axlT «aolaaeaeaq 

».;o3iJrt©o 9ffJ to g»OHAantet'i»q oitloeqa to 

Hf:-.-,! ■:! ,._.. ,: ,■ ^. ,.,.., .XXI *£r . xiogoXpe «v XXft&ioO nl 

ii ti ss-iofii) IfinXt Xitfnu bsia&'ss so XlXv/ anoXi^oni/tnl ;J"jr.riJ blMw 

ntolae 9i£;f oa' rf/jjeei XXjCw aaniioo 9tdt isott vxerf asal isdi §i.%9qqfi 

■^•.r.t c ;f <>.(finnj^ f.jj/o» luvi* BwolioJolv i£XXi3Xilt ©d J&Iworia &xi tX X*'^^ 

... ;. . . xl ^notifituilal as to soasacffi ad* al ^^i^i&q^ lad*© 


Is to prevent a change in the conditions and relations of the 
persons and property until the respective claims may he investi- 
gated and adjudicated. To the same effect are Kulwin v. Harsh « 
232 111* App* 419; 65rd and Haleted Realty Co, v« Chicago City B. 
& T> Go ., 899 111. App« 297, 314} Piatt v. Fischer . 285 111. App. 

Moreover, where a court of equity has acquired Juris- 
diction to determine the equitable rights of parties in lands 
it can also determine the legal rights, Roman v. Humphrey g , 220 
111, App, 502; Funk V. Fovler . 179 111, App, 356, 

Defendant next asserts that the court erred in waiving 
bond on behalf of the plaintiffs. The requirement of a bond in 
these cases la largely within the discretion of the chancellor 
and his order will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse 
of dleoretlon. The order recites that ",,♦ It appearing that 
thez>e le good cause, It Is Further Ordered that no bond need be 
executed by the plaintiff s» ** The record Justifies the entry of 
this order and shows that no bond was necessary. 

Plaintiffs assert in their complaint and the petition 
hat defendant is preventing them from carrying out their agree- 
ent, and they ask for specific performance by defendant. Under 
»ch circumstances a preliminary injunction, maintaining the 
;atus, should be issued, Young v. Federal Union Surety Co ., 
13 111, App, 278, 281, and Rago v. Vlllagfe of Melrose Park , 161 
1. App. 18, 

The Injunctlonal order appealed from was properly 
bered and it Is affirmed, 


iOhett, J. and O'Connor, J,, concur. 

~iJ39VfiJ: »cj' XjBffl nml&lo 9Vtto&qri^i sAt lltnu x*Tt«qoiq has snosiej 

,S Y^iO, o u&Qi ti\j ^y 4OC ■S[g'Lgifl>a: lie^aXj&H biiB 5n?5d tPJl:^ •qqA »£II S-i-., 
' .-ts rlosi'^; ^tr tiTjaX^ ;-MK t?eS *qq:A .1X1 8eS , .©0_^_j& 


Htm. ■ tJtf^Xfs s»I<Ji8*iirp» ©r^d" ««lffln©S'»& o;? /loiifolJb 

^-"^ t g. '^fe'tfi sL fif^ft « , y /i.'-^vo-j^ , .sffljji'i la^sX ©ifS" 9nii«^o*9.& osX« en© tl 

,Se5 *vqA ^III evi t22l>i£!1.^2Ljffi£l «--^''3 •C[cjA •XII 

nl .o/it ; asvas-xli/ps*! 9Jti7 ,B*ll^nlsXq «d;f lo IX^irisci no fsnotf 

':rGXX$t;)Xi/i»ii& d£^ lo fioX^ei:o&X£) Bdt nMil^ "(gXASoesX si aeaAo sasd^ 

-arii' BS(«XfiiXf fjed-xi/J-aXfi ad" ton XXiw «x«J&^o eM iiiiA 

SmiJ ^nln&BiiqM i^t «»k" JisriS" scvitioe'i 'Sft&'xo srRP •fiolJ'diOBlJb to 

^l^aijasfosf? Sisw .6n<Kf on i&dt imcris fens 'xoMo »ldf ^ 
lOl^l^G. alslqmoo tlBrit Ajt ttestsA nflttat.'al'i 

e/W -^taZ&iat&m ^nottoaalRl ii.QXiiffllX«iq a ®©ofia*aM«o'xXo dom 

^^^ . -S'Tf;^"! 9ft0iXQ?C lo laagXXl? >▼ oaafi Bub ,X8S ,8VS .qqA ,XXI 56 

.r<X »qqA ,XJ 
->jXt»qoiq 8«w jsoii fi»XJ9»qq« i^fcto XfifioiJoisj/t«X ©rf^ 


111. UnpubllBhed opinions 


Borrower who signs this card is responsible for 

the return of the book. 
Not Transferable. 

Not to be taken from the Reading Room. 
Sign legibly. 
Obey these rules and avoid fines. 

Date Name